ANALYSIS: George Floyd was deliberately murdered, right on schedule to unleash race riots across America to cause even more chaos

(Natural News) After reviewing the videos surrounding the arrest and killing of George Floyd, it’s clear to me that he was deliberately murdered. I understand there are different interpretations of what happened, and new evidence may emerge that will alter my view, but based on what I’ve seen so far, it seems abundantly clear that Mr. Floyd was deliberately murdered in broad daylight.
As I know very well due to my many years of training alongside law enforcement and military veterans, police officers are specifically trained to avoid pushing their body weight, through their knee, onto a suspect’s throat or neck for the simple reason that doing so causes severe injury or death. Any police officer that deliberately places their knee (and hence, their body weight) on the neck of a suspect who is pinned against the ground is doing so out of a premeditated desire to cause death.
The question isn’t whether George Floyd was murdered — he clearly was — the real question is why he was murdered.
Put another way, who benefits from the death of George Floyd?
The answer, of course, is that the forces of chaos and destruction (i.e. anti-American, anti-Trump) benefit from his murder. The more chaos and destruction is unleashed during this election year, the more the media hypes up the disaster and assigns blame to President Trump. Logically, it’s absurd, since President Trump had nothing to do with the murder of George Floyd. But emotionally, the media propaganda messaging whips up fear, anger and frustration — emotions that will largely be translated into anti-Trump sentiment in the coming elections.
This comes on the heels of Joe Biden telling a black interview host, “You ain’t black” if you don’t vote for me. The black community was rightfully outraged. Democrats experienced a wave of horror in old “crazy Joe’s” comments, realizing that if they didn’t do something to get the black vote to swing back to their side, many black Americans would vote for Trump, who isn’t someone who talks condescendingly to the black community (like Biden just did).
Right on time, almost as if scripted for the media in advance, comes the story the Left has been dreaming of: “White cop murders innocent black man in broad daylight.” Suddenly the narrative shifts. Joe Biden’s comment is quickly forgotten, and the media tries to redirect blame to Trump.
Left-wing provocateurs send in the militants to torch buildings and cause mayhem. Certain “race baiter” black leaders whip up the hatred and division for maximum effect, utterly avoiding what they should be doing which is calling for all humans to rise up against the real enemies of humanity: Globalists, Big Tech and the depopulation vaccine engineers who will soon be targeting black people all across the world with a “kill switch” coronavirus vaccine.
For the globalists to maintain control of humanity, they must maintain the hatred and division between the races, for if all humans banded together to rise up and defeat the globalists, the people would achieve an immediate victory. The only way the globalists maintain their criminal control and mass genocide operations is to convince certain groups of people to go to war with other groups. It’s all a distraction from the real threat to us all: Evil, demonic globalists who despise all human beings.
Look as this “white cop” carries out the engineered murder in broad daylight, almost as if he’s posing for the cameras, gleeful about the total destruction and hatred he’s about to unleash on the world:
Notice how his torso is leaning forward, placing the majority of his upper body weight on George Floyd’s neck, exactly where the carotid artery is located. Note also that Mr. Floyd is pinned to the concrete and thus has no “give” on the opposite side of his neck. This technique is widely known across law enforcement to be deadly. It is clearly deliberate. This cop could have easily controlled Mr. Floyd by placing his knee between Mr. Floyd’s shoulder blades, for example, but instead he chose to target the man’s neck.
To me, that looks like straight up murder, and based on the video evidence we’ve seen so far, we call for a criminal murder investigation into the police officers involved.
UPDATE: Derek Chauvin has now been arrested and charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter, according to multiple media sources.
Learn more about humanity rising up against oppression and government violence in this important podcast:
Brighteon.com/2e81d0b1-bf3a-428a-9cfa-209e058f9a9b
This article will also be posted on Violence.news, where you may be able to successfully share it without it being banned by the tech giants. Look for it there.



ASMR – Why Is My Brain Tingling?

From Scientific American:

A few years ago, I watched a YouTube video called “Virtual Barbershop.” It was one of those viral videos that attempted to be somewhat educational. It featured (somewhat silly) barbershop sounds recorded with a special microphone that made the sounds appear as if in 3-D, to demonstrate how the brain localizes sounds.
Although it was meant to be funny and a bit of a gag video, I noticed that some of the 3-D sounds actually relaxed me. In fact, I realized it was the same calming feeling I got when watching, of all things, Bob Ross’ “Joy of Painting” videos. Curious, I watched some of Bob’s YouTube videos, and sure enough, his soothing voice, brushing and tapping sounds, and calm, deliberate actions had me nearly falling asleep.
By some happy little accident, I noticed a “recommended” video in the YouTube side bar called “Oh, such a good 3-D ASMR video.” I immediately felt relaxed upon hearing the sounds in the video, and even felt a small “tingle” in my head. That’s how I discovered that I had ASMR.
ASMR? It sounds like some horrible affliction—an acronym for a weird, one-in-100 million condition. “Hi, I’m Deirdre, and I have ASMR.” What is it—and why is my brain tingling?
What is ASMR?
ASMR, short for autonomous sensory meridian response, is a pleasant feeling caused by certain auditory or sensory stimuli. ASMR enthusiasts call these sensations “tingles,” or “brain bubbles,” since they are mostly felt in the head and down the spine, and produce a sense of deep relaxation. Common triggers for ASMR tingles include tapping sounds, hair brushing, massage, whispering and more.
ASMR has a large online presence, particularly on YouTube—a search of “ASMR” yields 5.1 million results. ASMR channels are curated by “ASMRtists,” who produce videos designed to induce tingles. Many focus on simple, relaxing sounds, or ramble in a soft whisper to the viewer. Others feature first-person views of elaborate role-plays, such as cranial nerve exams, applying makeup, or ear cleaning (a personal favorite). Still others focus on guided meditation, positive affirmations and anxiety relief, which are relaxing even for those who don’t experience ASMR. Of course, as with most things on the Internet, some ASMR videos can get very strange.
In spite of its admittedly weird nature, I appreciate how my ASMR helps me unwind from the stresses of graduate school. However, as a neuroscience graduate student, I was curious about what’s going on in my brain when I get ASMR. Why would listening to a whispering voice or watching someone fold towels cause a tingly feeling? Why do only some people feel relaxed when they hear or see triggers?
Craig Richard, a professor in the Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences at Virginia’s Shenandoah University, also asks these questions. He is the founder of the ASMR University website, and host of the ASMR University Podcast. Richard created ASMR University to “help gather and share what is known about ASMR, and also to inspire others to expand the understanding of ASMR through research and publications.”
Indeed, despite ASMR’s growing popularity, there have only been three peer-reviewed studies of the phenomenon, and the main focus has been on social studies. Research has barely begun into what goes on in the brain during ASMR. But here’s what might be happening.
A relaxed body map
Sometimes, you need to hear trigger sounds to get ASMR tingles. When sounds reach the brain, they are processed in the auditory cortex. But, this happens for all sounds we hear—what is it specifically about tapping or whispering that triggers the tingles?
The answer may lie in another brain area that helps with body awareness and sensation, called the somatosensory cortex. This strip of brain tissue is essentially a “body map.” Each area of the body is represented along the strip, from head to toe.
Richard explains, “The sensory experiences (tactile, audio, visual) happening inside any one person will be going to different parts of the sensory cortex. The surprising thing is how this wide array of sensations can all result in a similar perception of tingles and relaxation.”
Further, there is a lot of cross-talk between brain regions. Specifically, ASMR might involve a “conversation” between the auditory and somatosensory cortex. The information about the sounds may travel to the somatosensory cortex, and activate certain body-associated regions as if they’re actually being touched. For example, watching an ASMR video featuring ear cleaning, the sounds of “scratching” in your ear may be activating the “ear” portion of the somatosensory cortex, making it seem as though you’re actually experiencing the act.
That might explain why I got tingles during the “Virtual Barbershop” video—it created a 3-D space in which I “felt” the sounds affecting different parts of my body.
Mirror, mirror in my brain
Perhaps you can’t stand whispering, but instead get tingles from watching massage videos. Rest assured, there’s another possible explanation for your tingle trigger.
The brain has cells called “mirror neurons,” which are located in higher-order areas of the brain. Mirror neurons activate when watching someone doing a motion or task, and are thought to mimic the movements that are seen. It’s as if you’re performing the movement in your mind, but not physically. Unsurprisingly, mirror neurons also connect to the “body map” and motor areas of the brain.
“This network of neurons subtly recreates an experience in your brain as you watch it,” said Richard. “In other words, you are activating a similar set of neurons as the person [who] is actually experiencing the action. Your brain is ‘mirroring’ the action it is seeing.”
Richard explained that mirror neurons might also be a component to learning and empathy. “Just like when you wince when you see someone cut their finger, viewers of ASMR videos may be mirroring the relaxation being simulated in the video.”
So, in the case of a massage ASMR video, it’s possible that watching massage movements activates mirror neurons, making it seem as if you were receiving a massage. Or, if you watched someone performing precise, meditative hand gestures, mirror neurons would make it seem like you were performing the calming gesture. That, combined with the connection to the body map, could possibly explain how watching such actions triggers tingles and relaxation.
Why do tingles feel good?
Whether they’re caused by an auditory-sensory conversation, or mirror neurons, or something else entirely unknown, tingles share one common factor—they feel really good, and produce a feeling of relaxation. This is caused by release of chemicals in the brain.
“It is likely that neurochemicals like dopamine, endorphins, oxytocin, and/or serotonin are involved in the sensation of ASMR,” Richard says.
For instance, dopamine is one chemical that is associated with reward. Specifically, it’s associated with food, sex, and drugs. However, it’s also associated with “frisson,” or chills that happen when listening to music. Taken together, dopamine might be released when listening to relaxing sounds, creating ASMR tingles. Another chemical, oxytocin, is associated with social bonding. In ASMR role plays, the ASMRtist often creates a sense of personal intimacy with the viewer, often with close contact and detailed attention to the viewer. This personal attention may trigger an oxytocin release in the brain, which again might be related to tingles.
“If someone has a biological change which alters the production of these chemicals or alters the sensitivities of the receptors for these chemicals, then that could explain some aspects of the biology of ASMR and the varied responses to ASMR triggers,” explained Richard.
Similarities to other sensations
ASMR shares similar characteristics with other body sensations. For instance, gently running fingers down someone’s arm or back can cause similar sensations to tingles. Tingles can also feel like the sensations you get from scalp massagers. For the curious, these are great ways to mimic tingles if you can’t experience ASMR from videos.
In a recent studyby UK researchers Emma Barratt and Nick Davis, around 6 percent of participants who had ASMR also had synesthesia, the ability to “hear” numbers or “see the color” of a sound. However, there was no significant association between ASMR and synesthesia. Paradoxically, ASMR may be linked to misophonia, or the inability to tolerate certain sounds. For example, chewing sounds cause ASMR in some people, but others can’t stand it. Anecdotally, those with ASMR experience tingles with certain peoples’ sounds, but when others make the same sounds, it disgusts them. It could be that the same neural mechanism that causes tingles could also operate in reverse, so to say, and cause discomfort when hearing certain sounds.
Like many uncommon brain conditions, “ASMR is starting off as a poorly understood phenomenon which will require neurobiological studies to give it wider validity and deeper understanding,” Richard says.
Future use of ASMR
Despite the current lack of studies on ASMR, many researchers are just now getting involved in understanding this phenomenon. For instance, Richard’s ASMR University is dedicated to helping solve the puzzle of what chemicals are involved, and to recruiting people with and without ASMR to help study its effects.
But, why should we care about some weird tingling sensation? What difference does it make if certain people’s brains are wired that way? Many believe that ASMR has the potential to be used as part of therapies for mental health or stress management. Indeed, in the Barratt and Davis study, 98 percent of participants watched ASMR videos to relax, 82 percent to help them sleep, and 70 percent to reduce stress. The same study found an increase in “flow,” or concentration during a task.
Richard agrees. “[The Barratt and Davis study] helps to support the hope that ASMR could someday be approved as a medical treatment to help people with insomnia, anxiety, depression, and/or chronic pain—but there is still a lot of research and clinical testing that needs to be done,” he says.
For now, though, I’ll take pleasure in the fact that I don’t know why my brain tingles.
Richard encourages readers to take an ASMR survey at this link.



SHUT THEM DOWN: It’s time to end the tyranny of Big Tech censorship in America

(Natural News) The tyranny of Big Tech is now on full display in America as Twitter has unleashed an army of so-called “fact-checkers” (i.e. left-wing propagandists) to place fact-check labels on the tweets of President Trump.
“Fact-checking” is just the excuse for tech giants like Twitter, Google, Wikipedia, YouTube or Facebook to interrupt the communications of conservative or pro-Trump users with radical left-wing propaganda messages. The very idea that a tech company led by communists and radical left-wing socialists could claim a monopoly on “facts” is absurd. No one has a monopoly on facts, and the entire fact-checking fiasco of the Big Tech ecosystem has boiled down to politically targeted censorship run by radical left-wing propagandists who are truly mentally ill in the fact that they actually believe their delusions are an accurate map of reality.
But it’s more than mere propaganda. It’s election rigging. It’s a violation of the civil rights of millions of Americans. And it’s almost certainly a type of criminal racketeering and fraud that should be aggressively prosecuted by the DOJ as well as Attorneys General across the 50 states.
Now, for the first time, after years of censorship of Trump supporters, the President himself is finally vowing to do something decisive about Big Tech tyranny. He tweets, “Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct. Big action to follow!”
What “big action” could that be?
If Trump wanted to resolve this problem literally overnight, his best option is to seize the domain names of the tech giants and force them to respect the First Amendment or be shut down.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601611310739456

Why President Trump must SEIZE the domain names Google.com, Twitter.com, Wikipedia.com, Facebook.com, YouTube.com, Vimeo.com and many more

The politically-targeted censorship of the tech giants mentioned above is, of course, criminal and fraudulent. It is election rigging, for starters, and Robert Mueller’s prosecution of so-called “Russian” content farms has already proved that the DOJ can charge tech companies with “attempt to defraud the United States of America” by interfering with elections.
All the left-wing tech giants are guilty of election rigging, which means they’re guilty of criminal fraud. The CEOs of the tech giants are not merely criminals but enemies against humanity:
But that’s only the beginning. In many cases, their politically targeted censorship is coordinated with the left-wing media. CNN broadcasts a segment demanding Facebook ban a certain channel, and Facebook complies. YouTube and Twitter usually follow in concert. This is coordinated, malicious de-platforming that’s almost always conducted for a political purpose: To silence a pro-Trump voice and thereby alter the landscape of public debate in order to eliminate Trump in the next election.

Without the freedom to speak, there can be no “fair and free” elections… all elections are null and void

Democracy, of course, cannot survive without the freedom to think, and the freedom to think cannot exist without the freedom to speak. The very idea of “fair and free” elections depends entirely on people being able to debate and consider a variety of ideas circulating in public forums such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook.
Without the freedom to speak, there can be no fair and free elections.
This means that until the First Amendment is respected by the tech giants, all elections should be postponed until at least one year has passed after free speech is restored.
Put another way, if the tech giants reverse their censorship today and reinstate all the pro-Trump channels and voices that they insidiously banned over the last three years, then we could perhaps hold elections in May of 2021.
But we cannot hold fair and free elections in November of this year, as those elections have already been rigged or stolen by Big Tech censorship.
All the debates have been rigged. Only one side of every debate is allowed to exist on the Big Tech platforms. Whether you’re talking about climate change, the coronavirus, border security or abortion, there is only one side of every debate that’s called “facts,” and those so-called “facts” are determined entirely by delusional, sociopathic Leftists who run the tech giants and believe they alone have the right to decide the “truthiness” of every statement under the sun.
The very existence of these Big Tech authoritarian enforcers is irreconcilable with basic human dignity and freedom. No corporation has the right to unilaterally decide what is true, and the very invocation of “facts” is an insult to all those who understand logic and reason. Facts may be stubborn things, but they are also incredibly difficult to nail down, and when so-called “facts” are claimed to be perfectly formed by the very people whose own rage-filled emotional filters practically nullify any rational circuitry in their own brains, those “facts” turn out to be nothing more than consensus delusions.
Consensus does not determine fact, and this is especially true when the consensus is cherry picked to support a particular slant on “facts” while silencing all those with opposing views.

We are calling on President Trump to suspend the 2020 elections until free speech is restored in America

Today we call on President Trump to suspend the 2020 elections, seize the domain names of the tech giants to temporarily shut them down, and force Big Tech to respect the universal right to free speech among not just Americans but citizens around the world who use Big Tech’s platforms.
The freedom to speak is a universal right, and Big Tech’s insidious, repeated efforts to suppress free speech are a crime against humanity. Any corporation that engages in this large-scale, malicious oppression of basic human rights should either be forced to change its ways or be permanently abolished and prevented from functioning ever again.
Unless Twitter respects free speech for all its users, in other words, Twitter should be abolished and eliminated, and Jack Dorsey should face trial for his crimes against humanity.
Fair and free elections can only take place after the public has been able to experience at least a full year of a level playing field when it comes to public discussions and debates on all topics, including politics, vaccines, transgenderism, abortions, GMOs, pandemics and so on.

We the People refuse to accept the outcome of the 2020 elections unless free speech is restored

Finally, We the People — all of us whom are being illegally silenced and censored by Big Tech — now assert that we will not accept the outcome of the 2020 elections unless free speech is restored long before the elections take place. (Ideally, we need a full year of a level playing field before any honest elections can be held.)
The elections are being rigged every day via a coordinated criminal conspiracy among the tech giants to deprive the American people of their civil rights to engage in the very process of democracy: Debate, speech and voting.
It’s also abundantly clear that every censorship effort by the tech giants has been formulated specifically to defeat President Trump and all Republicans in the US Congress. Christians are also being systematically targeted and silenced by the radical left-leaning tech giants. Because these malicious censorship efforts are clearly so one-sided and engineered to rig all future elections, they qualify as criminal racketeering under the RICO Act.
Big Tech is, in reality, a criminal cartel of techno-fascists who routinely violate U.S. law with increasing aggressiveness. It is now abundantly clear they will never stop their crimes against America unless they are forced to stop. This means that unless humanity wants to wake up and find itself utterly enslaved, living in an Orwellian authoritarian nightmare run by lunatic Leftists who celebrate the murder of babies and the chemical neutering of children under the label of “transgenderism,” we must all rise up and abolish Big Tech with a sense of urgency.
The tech giants must be dismantled and permanently abolished. They must never be allowed to rise up again and concentrate the power of speech in the hands of the few. The CEOs and top managers of all the tech giants who have engaged in this criminal behavior must be arrested and prosecuted, then punished accordingly.
In summary:
– Big Tech platforms, including Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, are engaged in a criminal conspiracy against the United States of America to selectively censor conservative, Christian and pro-Trump voices in an effort to rig all future elections and control the allowable arguments in every debate.
– The U.S. government must seize the domain names of all the tech giants to halt their crimes against the American people. The domain names may be returned once those corporations sign a consent decree in which they agree to reverse all their free speech censorship and allow speech freedom on their platforms.
– The 2020 elections must be postponed until mid-2021 in order to allow free speech to be restored in America so that open debates can be allowed to take place, contributing to “fair and free” elections.
– Knowing that Big Tech is actively working to rig the 2020 elections with politically targeted censorship, if the 2020 elections are allowed to take place, We the People withdraw our consent from recognizing the “winners” of that rigged election.
– Unless free speech is restored, the 2020 elections are already null and void, and the American people should universally withhold any recognition of the outcome of the 2020 election while demanding the restoration of free speech, public debate and the freedom to think as the necessary pillars for any resumption of democratic elections.
NOTE: Facebook will prohibit you from sharing this story from the NaturalNews.com domain. That’s part of their criminal conspiracy: Censor those who are pointing out their crimes against humanity. To share this story, first go to Banned.news:
Banned.news/2020-05-27-shut-them-down-end-tyranny-big-tech-censorship.html
Find more news about censorship and free speech at Banned.news.



-51.2%! Atlanta Fed Now Expects Staggering Collapse In Q2 GDP

From ZeroHedge

Two months ago, St Louis Fed president James Bullard triggered a market plunge when he predicted that unemployment may soar to 30% and GDP plunge by an unprecedented 50%, vastly eclipsing the collapse observed during the Great Depression.
Sure enough, moments ago the Atlanta Fed’s closely followed GDPNow tracker confirmed this worst case scenario, when the latest model estimate for real GDP growth in the second quarter of 2020 crashed to -51.2% on May 29, down from -40.4% on May 28, which would be the biggest drop on record.
How did the US just lose 10% (annualized) in GDP growth in 1 day? Here is the explanation:
After this morning’s Advance Economic Indicators report from the U.S. Census Bureau and personal income and outlays release from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the nowcast of second-quarter real personal consumption expenditures growth decreased from -43.3 percent to -56.5 percent and the nowcast of the contribution of change in real net exports to second-quarter real GDP growth decreased from 2.07 percentage points to 0.73 percentage points.
And this is what the AtlantaFed’s real-time GDP estimate for the current quarter looks like:



George Floyd Worked Security At The Same Nightclub As The Officer Who Killed Him

From ZeroHedge

bizarre twist in the murder of George Floyd was reported on Thursday night, as a former club owner in south Minneapolis revealed that Floyd worked at her club as a security guard, alongside recently fired police officer Derek Chauvin, the man who killed him.
Club owner Maya Santamaria says that the two both worked the same security shift at El Nuevo Rodeo club on Lake Street, before the business was sold a few months ago.
“Chauvin was our off-duty police for almost the entirety of the 17 years that we were open. They were working together at the same time, it’s just that Chauvin worked outside and the security guards were inside,” Santamaria told KSTP.
However, Santamaria said that she can’t be certain that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other, because often over a dozen security guards working at the club on any given night.
Still, they did work overlapping shifts, and the fact that one man ended up killing the other should justify further investigation into whether or not the two had a prior relationship.
If Chauvin and Floyd were not meeting for the first time in the moments before Floyd’s death, that could potentially mean that there was a deeper motive behind the murder.
If true, this could make the difference between a manslaughter charge or a murder charge.
As of right now, no other evidence of a prior relationship has been revealed, but this is an extremely strange coincidence, which would be cause for serious suspicion in any other circumstance.
Santamaria says that she did not realize that the men in the video were her former employees until a friend told her.
“My friend sent me (the video) and said this is your guy who used to work for you and I said, ‘It’s not him.’ And then they did the closeup and that’s when I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s him.’ I didn’t recognize George as one of our security guys because he looked really different lying there like that,” Santamaria said.
People around the country are calling for Chauvin to be charged with murder, but thus far no formal charges have been filed against any of the officers involved in Floyd’s death.
All four of the officers who were on the scene at the time of the incident were fired from the police force, but Floyd’s family says that is not enough, and the city’s mayor agrees.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has called for criminal charges against the police officer who killed George Floyd.
“I’ve wrestled with, more than anything else over the last 36 hours, one fundamental question: Why is the man who killed George Floyd not in jail. If you had done it, or I had done it, we would be behind bars right now,” Frey said.
When asked about which specific charge he would want to see for the officer, Mayor Frey declined to comment, but many legal experts have speculated that Chauvin could face manslaughter charges considering the video evidence against him.



    Nearly Half Of Small Business Owners Expect To Close Down Permanently

    from ZeroHedge

    The economy was booming. The stock market was setting records. Then coronavirus came along and governments shut things down to minimize the pandemic. That led to massive layoffs and a nasty recession. But once states open up, things will spring back to life and the economy will go back to being great again.
    That’s the mainstream narrative. But it’s not based on reality.
    In truth, the economy was a Fed-induced bubble before the pandemic. The central bank has managed to reinflate the stock market bubble despite the economic destruction, but it is nothing but a Fed-induced sugar high. And the economy won’t likely rebound quickly, even after things open up.
    There are all kinds of reasons to doubt the quick economic recovery narrative. We’ve reported on the number of over-leveraged zombie companiesskyrocketing household debtthe battered labor market, and a potential cash-flow crisis even after the economy gets moving.
    Now we have another sign of long-term economic trouble. A survey conducted by financial services company Azlo found that nearly half of small business owners think they will eventually have to close their businesses for good.
    Forty-seven percent of the small business owners surveyed said they anticipate shutting down, and 41% said they are looking for full-time work elsewhere.
    This is on top of the small businesses that have already shut down and will never reopen.
    The survey also asked questions about the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) instituted through the CARES Act. The results were less than stellar, as Newsweek reports.
    Less than half of participants—38 percent—involved in Azlo’s recent survey applied for PPP loans. Of those who did apply, 37% said the program was slow to distribute funds and 20% described the process as ‘painful,’ the company reported.”
    It’s absurd to think the economy is going to come roaring back when nearly half of small business owners expect to shut down. Small businesses employ 58.9 million Americans, making up 47.5% of the country’s total employee workforce.
    The economy would struggle to recover from the shutdown even if it was healthy before the pandemic. And it wasn’t.



    Dr. Anthony Fauci’s ties to George Soros, Bill & Hillary Clinton, the World Health Organization, Bill Gates & the ‘Big Pharma mafia’ should set off alarms across America

    (Natural News) One of the greatest economic booms in our country’s history has been brought to its knees by a virus. Over 80,000 souls have been lost to this pandemic, and our country is slowly collapsing. The number of businesses lost to this virus is said to be about 100,000 that will never come back—one hundred thousand livelihoods and families that will no longer grace our towns and cities across this country. The economic downturn has been devastating, and there are many of our fellow citizens that will never recover.
    (Article by John C. Velisek republished from AllNewsPipeline.com)
    Dr. Anthony Fauci is tasked with leading us through this as the resident “expert” that has all of America shut down. It was his advice to President Trump that has locked down our country. It is Dr. Fauci that has set the limits of what our country should do. The damage is done when the experts are spreading fear and panic throughout the country and are allowed to set policy for the nation.
    Dr, Fauci persuaded President Trump to “lockdown” the entire U.S. economy based on a false Imperial College model-based on the work of Dr. Neil Ferguson. The Imperial College model has since been deemed to be a model “completely unusable for scientific purposes.” If the model was so flawed, why did Dr. Fauci not look closer into the results and question the facts as they were presented? It has been agreed to by many, including software engineer Sue Denim, that the Ferguson model “is garbage and can not be scientifically replicated.” The results- a destroyed economy and over 30 million Americans out of work and on the edge of generational poverty is the result of Dr. Fauci not understanding the impact of statements based on failure.
    Another study that Dr. Fauci showed to the President as factual was the study from the University of Washington IHME, another project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Once again, Fauci showed a preference for fault models and the meaningless havoc they would cause.
    As the proclaimed “infectious disease specialist,” Fauci has had many failures of this Chinese virus. On January 21 of this year, Fauci proclaimed the coronavirus was not a major threat and was something the American people should worry about. On February 29, Fauci told NBC Today that there is no need to change anything you are doing on a day to day basis. All these statements were based on World Health Organization statements, which Dr. Fauci parroted to the American People. Perhaps it is informative that Fauci had signed a memo of understanding with the WHO in 2018, stipulating that Fauci would rely on the WHO for information about China outbreaks.
    Fauci’s failures go back to the HIV/Aids search for a vaccine. The Washington Post described Fauci as someone with a reputation of being a skilled public health expert while battling AIDS in the 1980s. The battle against AIDS has proven to be a total failure with no vaccine ever found to be effective. To this day, Fauci claims that progress in vaccination therapy holds promise for an HIV/AIDS vaccine. All attempts to find an HIV/Aids vaccine have failed. The latest effort, funded by the NIAID (Fauci’s employer) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the tune of $100 million, also failed.
    It is also Dr. Fauci, who gets to decide what therapeutics we should use for treatment. It was in research done by the National Institutes of Health, where Dr. Fauci is the director, that Chloroquine was found to be an effective inhibitor of the coronavirus in 2015. It was during the SARS outbreak (SARS-CoV) that Chloroquine was found to be an effective agent, stopping SARS CoV completely. The coronavirus now ravaging our nation has a genome designated as SARS CoV-2 and shared almost 80% of the SARS genome. Both have been shown to use the same host cell receptor, which allows the virus to infect the host victim.
    In the Virology Journal, an official National Institute of Health published an article on August 22, 2005, that stated that “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SAR coronavirus infection and spread”. It was also shown to be effective before or after exposure. Hydroxychloroquine, a milder form of Chloroquine, has been in use since 1952 with manageable side effects. It has been used to not only treat current cases but also to prevent future cases. It functions both as a vaccine and a cure if taken early enough. This shows that the NIH, of which Dr. Fauci was director, knew as far back as 2005 that Chloroquine was effective against the coronavirus. It was also Dr. Fauci who sent $3.7 million to the Lab in Wuhan to study the weaponization of the coronavirus that had been outlawed in U.S. research laboratories because of the inherent dangers.
    Read more at: AllNewsPipeline.com



    Lancet Study That Caused WHO To Drop Hydroxychloroquine Trials Falls Under Scrutiny

    From Zero Hedge:

    A study published in the Lancet on Friday which prompted the World Health Organization to halt global trials of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 has fallen under scrutiny over a data discrepancy, The Guardian reports.
    According to the study – a data analysis of nearly 15,000 patients who received HCQ alone or with antibiotics (and conspicuously without zinc – the key ingredient), COVID-19 patients who received HCQ reportedly died at higher rates and experienced more cardiac complications than those without. As a result, the WHO halted all its trials involving the drug, which has been promoted by dozens of prominent doctors, and recently ordered by Indian health officials for use as a prophylactic against the disease.
    The study, led by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Advanced Heart Disease in Boston, examined patients in hospitals around the world, including in Australia. It said researchers gained access to data from five hospitals recording 600 Australian Covid-19 patients and 73 Australian deaths as of 21 April.
    But data from Johns Hopkins University shows only 67 deaths from Covid-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April. The number did not rise to 73 until 23 April. The data relied upon by researchers to draw their conclusions in the Lancet is not readily available in Australian clinical databases, leading many to ask where it came from. –The Guardian
    In short, the accuracy of the Brigham and Women’s study has been called into question. Meanwhile, Australia’s federal health department confirmed to Guardian Australia that data collected on COVID-19 in the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System was not the source for informing the trial. The news outlet also contacted the New South Wales and Victoria health departments, both of which said they did not provide researchers with data for the study.
    “We have asked the authors for clarifications, we know that they are investigating urgently, and we await their reply,” the Lancet told Guardian Australia. Meanwhile, lead author Dr. Mandeep Mehra said he had contacted Surgisphere – which provided the data, to reconcile the discrepancies with “the utmost urgency,” according to the report.
    Surgisphere founder Dr. Sapan Desai, an author on the Lancet paper, said that the discrepancy was caused by an Asian hospital which had been erroneously included in the Australian data.
    “We have reviewed our Surgisphere database and discovered that a new hospital that joined the registry on April 1, and self-designated as belonging to the Australasia continental designation,” said a spokesman. “In reviewing the data from each of the hospitals in the registry, we noted that this hospital had a nearly 100% composition of Asian race and a relatively high use of chloroquine compared to non-use in Australia. This hospital should have more appropriately been assigned to the Asian continental designation.”
    Desai claims that the error does not alter the overall study findings, and that just the Australia data would need to change.
    That said, Melbourne epidemiologist Dr. Allen Cheng has questions. For example, he said that the four Australian hospitals involved in the study should be named, that he’s never heard of Surgisphere, and that nobody from his hospital, The Alfred, has provided Surgisphere with data.
    “Usually to submit to a database like Surgisphere you need ethics approval, and someone from the hospital will be involved in that process to get it to a database,” said Cheng, adding that the dataset should be made public.
    “If they got this wrong, what else could be wrong?” he said, noting that it was also a “red flag” that the study has just four authors.
    “Usually with studies that report on findings from thousands of patients, you would see a large list of authors on the paper,” he said, adding “Multiple sources are needed to collect and analyse the data for large studies and you usually see that acknowledged in the list of authors.”
    He stressed that even if the paper proved to be problematic, it did not mean hydroxychloroquine was safe or effective in treating Covid-19. No strong studies to date have shown the drug is effective. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have potentially severe and even deadly side effects if used inappropriately, including heart failure and toxicity. Other studies have found the drug is associated with higher mortality when given to severely unwell Covid-19 patients.
    In a statement Surgisphere said it stood by the integrity of its data, saying all information from hospitals “is transferred in a deidentified manner” but could not be made public
    This requirement allows us to only maintain collaborations with top-tier institutions that are supported by the level of data-integrity and sophistication required for such work,” the statement said. “Naturally, this leads to the inclusion of institutions that have a tertiary care level of practice and provide quality healthcare that is relatively homogenous around the world. As with most corporations, the access to individual hospital data is strictly governed. Our data use agreements do not allow us to make this data public.” –The Guardian
    Chang believes it would be a big mistake to halt “strong, well-designed clinical trials examining the drug” over questionable data. His hospital, The Ascot, is currently recruiting patients in over 70 hospitals in every Australian state and territory, along with 11 hospitals in New Zealand for a randomized control trial which explores whether HCQ – on its own or in combination with other drugs, can successfully treat COVID-19.
    The leader of The Ascot trial, Prof. Josh Davis, has written to the authors of the Lancet study to ask for an explanation. Until then, patient recruitment has been placed on hold, according to an Ascot spokeswoman.
    “Following an observational study published in the Lancet Ascot has paused patient recruitment pending deliberations by the governance and ethics committees overseeing the trial,” she said. “We expect these deliberations to occur rapidly and will provide further information as they arise.”



    Bill Gates running deadly global “vaccine empire” that can only exist through extreme censorship of real science and intelligent questions about vaccine safety

    (Natural News) The reason why Microsoft co-founder and billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates is being given so much airtime amid the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis is because Gates is currently the world’s largest manufacturer of vaccines, as well as the money behind the mass vaccination agenda.
    Gates is also the single-largest donor to both the World Health Organization (WHO), which is currently under investigation by the United States for its handling of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and the CDC Foundation, both of which act as marketing arms for his global vaccine empire.
    There is no doubt that Gates lives to vaccinate, his number-one goal being to jab every single person on the planet with his many vaccines. Gates actually stated about a year-and-a-half ago that “vaccine hesitancy” is a top “global health threat” that must be dealt with if the world is going to “progress” in the direction he wants.
    Other recipients of moneys from Gates include Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee Chair PAC (political action committee), to which Gates has maxed out his legal contributions. Schiff, as you may recall, called on Facebook, Google, and Amazon back in early 2019 to censor all “vaccine misinformation” from their platforms.
    “Vaccines are both effective and safe,” Schiff wrote in a letter to these tech giants. “There is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling disease.”
    These obvious Gates-inspired talking points were accompanied by Schiff pushing a bill one year prior that would have increased the kangaroo “Vaccine Court” budget by another $11,200,000. This fund has already paid out some $4 billion to families of children who suffered disability and/or death due to vaccination, but it requires even more to handle a growing vaccine injury backlog.
    Recognizing that both the WHO and the CDC are largely funded by Gates, these two prominent pro-vaccine entities are anything but trustworthy when it comes to advising the public about best practices in health. And yet these same two entities are steering the narrative on Facebook, Pinterest, and other Big Tech platforms that are now actively censoring “misinformation or hoaxes” about vaccines.

    FactChecker, NPR, and PBS have all been bought off by Bill Gates

    You have probably run into the so-called “FactChecker” program, which is now used by both Facebook and Google to weed out “disinformation” about vaccines. Well, this, too, is made possible by Gates, who is currently FactChecker’s largest funder.
    Investigative journalist Jeremy Hammond has warned that relying on this so-called FactChecker to guide understanding about the safety and effectiveness of childhood vaccination is akin to asking Gates directly about whether or not to vaccinate.
    “Facebook is guilty of misinforming its users about vaccine safety,” Hammond writes. “They have no problem with lies about vaccine safety and effectiveness, as long as it’s intended to persuade parents to vaccinate their children.”
    On May 4, 2017, as one example, Facebook’s FactChecker declared false a statement made by Del Bigtree about vaccines containing aluminum and mercury, “which are neurotoxins, and vaccines cause encephalopathy,” Bigtree wrote. Even though this is factually correct information, as revealed on vaccine package inserts, the Gates-funded FactChecker decided it was “false” and immediately censored it.
    “Current data show vaccines are safe and do not cause toxicity or encephalopathy,” FactChecker wrote in place of Bigtree’s statement.
    As for mainstream media outlets like NPR and PBS that often parrot the pro-vaccine agenda, these, too, receive “massive gifts” from Gates that end up biasing their media coverage. Wherever Gates is injecting his cash fortune, in other words, expect to receive an onslaught of pro-vaccine propaganda.
    For more related news about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines, be sure to check out Vaccines.news.
    Sources for this article include:
    ChildrensHealthDefense.org
    NaturalNews.com
    JeremyRHammond.com



    “Minneapolis Is Burning” – Buildings Torched, Stores Looted, Protests Over George Floyd Intensify

    from ZeroHedge

    Update (10:21 ET): On Thursday morning, buildings are still on fire, and protesters are clashing with police. 
    Twitter user Tony Webster says looting continues this morning.
    Webster shows the extent of the damage from last night’s chaos: 
    Entire strip mall looted 
    Cub Foods grocery store destroyed 
    Aldi supermarket likely destroyed  
     Fires continue to rage 
     Protesters burned down a Wendy’s fast-food restaurant
     Here’s the AutoZone that was completely torched  
    Liquor store looted. Fire damage is seen at the entrance of the building. 
     Dollar General burns 
    Smartphone shop looted 
    Protesters robbed a Wells Fargo bank  
    Streets around the 3rd Precinct look like a warzone. Absolutely stunning… 
    Pictures from within Wendy’s — there’s nothing left… 
    h/t Tony Webster 
    Protesters spray paint a message on a wall: “Merchandise Can Be Replaced Black Lives Can Not.” 
    h/t Tony Webster
    BMW SUV burnt to a crisp 
    h/t Tony Webster
    Protesters write “Fuck The Bank” on the wall of U.S. Bancorp. Clearly not happy about their past banking experience. 
    h/t Tony Webster
    More retail shops burned 
    Protesters did not torch a “minority-owned” business. 
    h/t Tony Webster
    Another liquor store robbed  
    h/t Tony Webster
    Fires at a construction site
    h/t Tony Webster
    * * *
    For the second night in a row, peaceful protests over the in-custody death of George Floyd quickly turned violent Wednesday night, with multiple building structures set ablaze, widespread looting, and continued rioting. 
    Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey requested Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to deploy the Minnesota National Guard following the social unrest. Demonstrators torched multiple building structures, including an apartment complex and surrounding buildings, an AutoZone, and other retail stores. At least a dozen stores were looted and or damaged. 
    “That’s like five buildings on fire,” one demonstrator said while talking to Unicorn Riot News. 
    A reporter from the Minneapolis Star Tribune tweeted images of the apartment building engulfed in flames. 
    Apparently, the apartment building was new construction with no one inside (that has yet to be confirmed). 
    The fire quickly spread to other structures nearby. 
    Here are several unbelievable scenes around the apartment complex.
    “2020 is really going to go down in the books. This is the typa shit out future kids will read about. This is history in the making,” said one Twitter user while referring to the fires. 
    Looks like an entire block is on fire. 
    The fire around the apartment building continues to rage early Thursday morning. 
    Many stores in this “strip mall looted and every window broken,” tweeted one user.
    Unicorn Riot News tweeted scenes from outside an AutoZone on Wednesday evening that was burned to the ground. 
    Unicorn Riot tweeted early Thursday morning that “smoke, fire alarm blaring, sprinklers going off inside Target.” This is the same Target we noted on Wednesday evening that was looted by dozens, if not hundreds of people.  
    One Twitter user claims an “aldi may have also burned in the fires.” 
    Protesters were hungry and looted Wendy’s.
    The situation is getting tense on Thursday morning: “More militarized police have reinforced the roof and perimeter of the MPD 3rd Precinct building. But they’re just kind of standing around and law enforcement clearly has given up trying to control Minneapolis right now,” Unicorn Riot said. 
    Confirmed by Unicorn Riot but not official: “AutoZone and Wendy’s are all but burned down at this point. Some new condos under construction have gone up in flames as well.” 
    Unicorn Riot claims “shots were just fired” possibly at the police station, which is the area where much of the rioting has been based. 
    Here’s a live Periscope stream of the destruction, and at 5:51 ET, buildings are still on fire, and rioting continues. 
     Mayor Frey tweeted a plea for an end to the violence: 
    “Please, Minneapolis, we cannot let tragedy beget more tragedy,” the mayor’s tweet read. “The area along Lake has become unsafe. We are asking for your help in keeping the peace tonight.”
    And to make matters worse, social unrest has spread to Los Angeles on Wednesday night, where “black lives matter protesters” surrounded and attacked police cars on Highway 101 in response to what was happening in Minneapolis. 
    To remind our readers, President Trump signed an executive order in March, giving the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security the authority to activate up to one million National Guard and reservists to support the nationwide response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Though, as we’ve noted, the troops could be used across American municipalities to maintain social order. 

    A perfect storm is brewing across America’s inner cities of extreme wealth inequality, record-high unemployment, an economic crash, hatred towards cops, and months of lockdowns. All there needed to be was a trigger to ignite the unrest, that trigger could be the death of George Floyd. 



    Inside the NSA’s Secret Tool for Mapping Your Social Network

    From Wired.com 

    In the summer of 2013, I spent my days sifting through the most extensive archive of top-secret files that had ever reached the hands of an American journalist. In a spectacular act of transgression against the National Security Agency, where he worked as a contractor, Edward Snowden had transmitted tens of thousands of classified documents to me, the columnist Glenn Greenwald, and the documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras.
    Courtesy of Penguin Press
    Excerpted from Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State by Barton Gellman. Buy on Amazon.
    One of those documents, the first to be made public in June 2013, revealed that the NSA was tracking billions of telephone calls made by Americans inside the US. The program became notorious, but its full story has not been told.
    The first accounts revealed only bare bones. If you placed a call, whether local or international, the NSA stored the number you dialed, as well as the date, time and duration of the call. It was domestic surveillance, plain and simple. When the story broke, the NSA discounted the intrusion on privacy. The agency collected “only metadata,” it said, not the content of telephone calls. Only on rare occasions, it said, did it search the records for links among terrorists.
    I decided to delve more deeply. The public debate was missing important information. It occurred to me that I did not even know what the records looked like. At first I imagined them in the form of a simple, if gargantuan, list. I assumed that the NSA cleaned up the list—date goes here, call duration there—and converted it to the agency’s preferred “atomic sigint data format.” Otherwise I thought of the records as inert. During a conversation at the Aspen Security Forum that July, six weeks after Snowden’s first disclosure and three months after the Boston Marathon bombing, Admiral Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence, assured me that the records were “stored,” untouched, until the next Boston bomber came along.
    Even by that account, the scale of collection brought to mind an evocative phrase from legal scholar Paul Ohm. Any information in sufficient volume, he wrote, amounted to a “database of ruin.” It held personal secrets that “if revealed, would cause more than embarrassment or shame; it would lead to serious, concrete, devastating harm.” Nearly anyone in the developed world, he wrote, “can be linked to at least one fact in a computer database that an adversary could use for blackmail, discrimination, harassment, or financial or identity theft.” Revelations of “past conduct, health, or family shame,” for example, could cost a person their marriage, career, legal residence, or physical safety.
    Mere creation of such a database, especially in secret, profoundly changed the balance of power between government and governed. This was the Dark Mirror embodied, one side of the glass transparent and the other blacked out. If the power implications do not seem convincing, try inverting the relationship in your mind: What if a small group of citizens had secret access to the telephone logs and social networks of government officials? How might that privileged knowledge affect their power to shape events? How might their interactions change if they possessed the means to humiliate and destroy the careers of the persons in power? Capability matters, always, regardless of whether it is used. An unfired gun is no less lethal before it is drawn. And in fact, in history, capabilities do not go unused in the long term. Chekhov’s famous admonition to playwrights is apt not only in drama, but in the lived experience of humankind. The gun on display in the first act—nuclear warheads, weaponized disease, Orwellian cameras tracking faces on every street—must be fired in the last. The latent power of new inventions, no matter how repellent at first, does not lie forever dormant in government armories.
    These could be cast as abstract concerns, but I thought them quite real. By September of that year, it dawned on me that there were also concrete questions that I had not sufficiently explored. Where in the innards of the NSA did the phone records live? What happened to them there? The Snowden archive did not answer those questions directly, but there were clues.
    I stumbled across the first clue later that month. I had become interested in the NSA’s internal conversation about “bulk collection,” the acquisition of high-volume data sets in their entirety. Phone records were one of several kinds. The agency had grown more and more adept, brilliantly creative in fact, at finding and swallowing other people’s information whole. Lately the NSA had begun to see that it consumed too much to digest. Midlevel managers and engineers sounded notes of alarm in briefings prepared for their chains of command. The cover page of one presentation asked “Is It the End of the SIGINT World as We Have Come to Know It?” The authors tried for a jaunty tone but had no sure answer. The surveillance infrastructure was laboring under serious strain.
    One name caught my eye on a chart that listed systems at highest risk: Mainway. I knew that one. NSA engineers had built Mainway in urgent haste after September 11, 2001. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had drafted orders, signed by President George W. Bush, to do something the NSA had never done before. The assignment, forbidden by statute, was to track telephone calls made and received by Americans on American soil. The resulting operation was the lawless precursor of the broader one that I was looking at now.
    Mainway came to life alongside Stellarwind, the domestic surveillance program created by Cheney in the first frantic weeks after al Qaeda flew passenger airplanes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Stellarwind defined the operation; Mainway was a tool to carry it out.
    At the time, the NSA knew how to do this sort of thing with foreign telephone calls, but it did not have the machinery to do it at home.
    When NSA director Mike Hayden received the execution order on October 4, 2001 for “the vice president’s special program,” NSA engineers assembled a system from bare metal and borrowed code within a matter of days, a stupendous achievement under pressure. They commandeered 50 state-of-the-art computer servers from Dell, which was about to ship them to another customer, and lashed them into a quick and dirty but powerful cluster. Hayden cleared out space in a specially restricted wing of OPS 2B, an inner sanctum of the gleaming, mirrored headquarters complex at Fort Meade, Maryland. When the cluster expanded, incorporating some 200 machines, Mainway spilled into an annex in the Tordella Supercomputer Facility nearby. Trusted lieutenants began calling in a small group of analysts, programmers, and mathematicians on October 6 and 7.
    On Columbus Day, October 8, Hayden briefed them on their new jobs in a specially compartmented new operation. That day he called it Starburst. The Stellarwind cryptonym replaced it soon afterward. During the same holiday weekend, Hayden dispatched personnel from Special Source Operations to negotiate the secret purchase of telephone data in bulk from companies including AT&T and Verizon. The price would surpass $102 million in the coming five years.
    It was impossible to hide the hubbub from other NSA personnel, who saw new equipment arriving under armed escort at a furious pace, but even among top clearance holders hardly anyone knew what was going on. Stellarwind was designated as ECI, “exceptionally controlled information,” the most closely held classification of all. From his West Wing office, Cheney ordered that Stellarwind be concealed from the judges of the FISA Court and from members of the intelligence committees in Congress.
    According to my sources and the documents I worked through in the fall of 2013, Mainway soon became the NSA’s most important tool for mapping social networks—an anchor of what the agency called Large Access Exploitation. “Large” is not an adjective in casual use at Fort Meade. Mainway was built for operations at stupendous scale. Other systems parsed the contents of intercepted communications: voice, video, email and chat text, attachments, pager messages, and so on. Mainway was queen of metadata, foreign and domestic, designed to find patterns that content did not reveal. Beyond that, Mainway was a prototype for still more ambitious plans. Next-generation systems, their planners wrote, could amplify the power of surveillance by moving “from the more traditional analysis of what is collected to the analysis of what to collect.” Patterns gleaned from call records would identify targets in email or location databases, and vice versa. Metadata was the key to the NSA’s plan to “identify, track, store, manipulate and update relationships” across all forms of intercepted content. An integrated map, presented graphically, would eventually allow the NSA to display nearly anyone’s movements and communications on a global scale. In their first mission statement, planners gave the project the unironic name “the Big Awesome Graph.” Inevitably it acquired a breezy acronym, “the BAG.”
    The crucial discovery on this subject turned up at the bottom right corner of a large network diagram prepared in 2012. A little box in that corner, reproduced below, finally answered my question about where the NSA stashed the telephone records that Blair and I talked about. The records lived in Mainway. The implications were startling.
    The diagram as a whole, too large to display in full, traced a “metadata flow sourced from billing records” at AT&T as they wended through a maze of intermediate stops along the way to Fort Meade. Mailorder, the next to last stop, was an electronic traffic cop, a file sorting and forwarding system. The ultimate destination was Mainway. The “BRF Partitions” in the network diagram were named for Business Records FISA orders, among them a dozen signed in 2009 that poured the logs of hundreds of billions of phone calls into Mainway.
    To a first-time reader of network maps, Mainway’s cylindrical icon might suggest a storage tank. It is not. The cylinder is a standard symbol for a database, an analytic service that runs on the hardware. Mainway was not a container for data at rest. The NSA has names for those. They are called data marts and data warehouses. If the agency merely stored the US telephone records, it would have left them in a system called Fascia II, the “call detail record warehouse” that feeds Mainway. Mainway’s mission, laid out in its first fiscal year, was to “enable NSA … to dominate the global communications infrastructure, and the targets that currently operate anonymously within it.” The way the system accomplished that task had huge implications for American privacy.
    For reasons that will become apparent soon, I want to reproduce the entry for Mainway in the SSO Dictionary, a classified NSA reference document:
    (TS//SI//REL) Mainway, or the Mainway Precomputed Contact Chaining Service, is an analytic tool for contact chaining. It’s helping analysts do target discovery by enabling them to quickly and easily navigate the increasing volumes of global communications metadata. Mainway attacks the volume problem of analyzing the global communications network.
    There were three noteworthy terms in that short passage: volume problem, contact chaining, and precomputed. The last two, in combination, turned my understanding of the call records program upside down. Before we get to them, a note on the volume problem.
    The NSA has many volume problems, actually. Too much information moving too fast across global networks. Too much to ingest, too much to store, too much to retrieve through available pipes from distant collection points. Too much noise drowning too little signal. In the passage I just quoted, however, the volume problem referred to something else—something deeper inside the guts of the surveillance machine. It was the strain of an unbounded appetite on the NSA’s digestive tract. Collection systems were closing their jaws on more data than they could chew. Processing, not storage, was the problem.
    For a long time, intelligence officials explained away the call records database by quoting a remark from President Bush. “It seems like to me that if somebody is talking to al Qaeda, we want to know why,” he had said.
    In fact, that was not at all the way the NSA used the call records. The program was designed to find out whether, not why, US callers had some tie to a terrorist conspiracy—and to do so, it searched us all. Working through the FBI, the NSA assembled a five-year inventory of phone calls from every account it could touch. Trillions of calls. Nothing like that was needed to find the numbers on a bad guy’s telephone bill.
    This is where contact chaining came in. The phrase is used to describe a sophisticated form of analysis that looks for hidden, indirect relationships in very large data sets. Contact chaining began with a target telephone number, such as Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s, and progressively widened the lens to ask whom Tsarnaev’s contacts were talking to, and whom those people were talking to, and so on.
    Software tools mapped the call records as “nodes” and “edges” on a grid so large that the human mind, unaided, could not encompass it. Nodes were dots on the map, each representing a telephone number. Edges were lines drawn between the nodes, each representing a call. A related tool called MapReduce condensed the trillions of data points into summary form that a human analyst could grasp.
    Network theory called this map a social graph. It modeled the relationships and groups that defined each person’s interaction with the world. The size of the graph grew exponentially as contact chaining progressed. The whole point of chaining was to push outward from a target’s immediate contacts to the contacts of contacts, then contacts of contacts of contacts. Each step in that process was called a hop.
    Double a penny once a day and you reach $1 million in less than a month. That is what exponential growth looks like with a base of two. As contact chaining steps through its hops, the social graph grows much faster. If the average person calls or is called by 10 other people a year, then each hop produces a tenfold increase in the population of the NSA’s contact map. Most of us talk on the phone with a lot more than 10 others. Whatever that number, dozens or hundreds, you multiply it by itself to measure the growth at each hop.
    Former NSA deputy director John C. Inglis testified to Congress in 2013 that NSA analysts typically “go out two or three hops” when they chain through the call database. For context, data scientists estimated decades ago that it would take no more than six hops to trace a path between any two people on Earth. Their finding made its way into popular culture in Six Degrees of Separation, the play by John Guare (which subsequently was adapted into a film). Three students at Albright College refashioned the film as a parlor game, “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.” The game then inspired a website, The Oracle of Bacon, that calculates the shortest path from the Footloose star to any of his Hollywood peers. The site is still live as I write this, and it makes for an entertaining guide on hops and where they can take you.
    Bacon shared screen credits with a long list of actors. Those were his direct links, one hop from Bacon himself. Actors who never worked alongside him, but appeared in a film with someone who had, were two hops away from Bacon. Scarlett Johansson never worked with Bacon, but each of them had starred alongside Mickey Rourke: Bacon in Diner, Johannson in Iron Man 2. Two hops, through Rourke, connected them. If you kept on playing you discovered that Bacon was seldom more than two hops away from any actor, however removed in time and movie style. In a single-industry town like Hollywood, links like these might make intuitive sense. More surprising, if you did not spend much time around logarithms, was the distance traveled by one or two hops through the vastly larger NSA data set. Academic research suggested that an average of three hops—the same number Inglis mentioned—could trace a path between any two Americans.
    Contact chaining on a scale as grand as a whole nation’s phone records was a prodigious computational task, even for Mainway. It called for mapping dots and clusters of calls as dense as a star field, each linked to others by webs of intricate lines. Mainway’s analytic engine traced hidden paths across the map, looking for relationships that human analysts could not detect. Mainway had to produce that map on demand, under pressure of time, whenever its operators asked for a new contact chain. No one could predict the name or telephone number of the next Tsarnaev. From a data scientist’s point of view, the logical remedy was clear. If anyone could become an intelligence target, Mainway should try to get a head start on everyone.
    “You have to establish all those relationships, tag them, so that when you do launch the query you can quickly get them,” Rick Ledgett, the former NSA deputy director, told me years later. “Otherwise you’re taking like a month to scan through a gazillion-line phone bill.” And that, right there, was where precomputation came in. Mainway chained through its database continuously—“operating on a 7×24 basis,” according to the classified project summary. You might compare its work, on the most basic level, to indexing a book—albeit a book with hundreds of millions of topics (phone numbers) and trillions of entries (phone calls). One flaw in this comparison is that it sounds like a job that will be finished eventually. Mainway’s job never ended. It was trying to index a book in progress, forever incomplete. The FBI brought the NSA more than a billion new records a day from the telephone companies. Mainway had to purge another billion a day to comply with the FISA Court’s five-year limit on retention. Every change cascaded through the social graph, redrawing the map and obliging Mainway to update ceaselessly.
    Mainway’s purpose, in other words, was neither storage nor preparation of a simple list. Constant, complex, and demanding operations fed another database called the Graph-in-Memory.
    When the Boston marathon bombs exploded in April 2013, the Graph-in-Memory was ready. Absent unlucky data gaps, it already held a summary map of the contacts revealed by the Tsarnaev brothers’ calls. The underlying details—dates, times, durations, busy signals, missed calls, and “call waiting events”—were easily retrieved on demand. Mainway had already processed them. With the first hop precomputed, the Graph-in-Memory could make much quicker work of the second and the third.
    To keep a Tsarnaev graph at the ready, Mainway also had to precompute a graph for everyone else. And if Mainway had your phone records, it also held a rough and ready diagram of your business and personal life.
    As I parsed the documents and interviewed sources in the fall of 2013, the implications finally sank in. The NSA had built a live, ever-updating social graph of the US.
    Our phone records were not in cold storage. They did not sit untouched. They were arranged in a one-hop contact chain of each to all. All kinds of secrets—social, medical, political, professional—were precomputed, 24/7. Ledgett told me he saw no cause for concern because “the links are unassembled until you launch a query.” I saw a database that was preconfigured to map anyone’s life at the touch of a button.
    I am well aware that a person could take this line of thinking too far. Maybe I have. The US is not East Germany. As I pieced this picture together, I had no reason to believe the NSA made corrupt use of its real-time map of American life. The rules imposed some restrictions on use of US telephone records, even after Bush’s attorney general, Michael Mukasey, blew a hole in them. Only 22 top officials, according to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, had authority to order a contact chain to be built from data in Mainway’s FISA partitions.
    But history has not been kind to the belief that government conduct always follows rules or that the rules will never change in dangerous ways. Rules can be bypassed or rewritten—with or without notice, with or without malignant intent, by a few degrees at a time or more than a few. Government might decide one day to look in Mainway or a comparable system for evidence of a violent crime, or any crime, or any suspicion. Governments have slid down that slope before. Within living memory, Richard Nixon had ordered wiretaps of his political enemies. The FBI, judging Martin Luther King Jr. a “dangerous and effective Negro,” used secret surveillance to record his sexual liaisons. A top lieutenant of J. Edgar Hoover invited King to kill himself or face exposure.
    Meaningful abuse of surveillance had come much more recently. The FBI illegally planted hundreds of GPS tracking devices without warrants. New York police spied systemically on mosques. Governments at all levels used the power of the state most heavy-handedly, sometimes illegally, to monitor communities disadvantaged by poverty, race, religion, ethnicity, and immigration status. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump threatened explicitly to put his opposing candidate in jail. Once in office, he asserted the absolute right to control any government agency. He placed intense pressure on the Justice Department, publicly and privately, to launch criminal investigations of his critics.
    The Graph-in-Memory knew nothing of such things. It had no awareness of law or norms or the nature of abuse. It computed the chains and made diagrams of our hidden relationships on a vast, ever-updating map. It obeyed its instructions, embedded in code, whatever those instructions said or might ever say.

    Adapted from Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State by Barton Gellman. Copyright © 2020 by Barton Gellman. Published by arrangement with Penguin Press, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.
    When you buy something using the retail links in our stories, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Read more about how this works.



    Election Meddling? Rule-Enforcing Twitter Execs Under Fire For Anti-Trump Postings

    From Zero Hedge:

    Shortly after Twitter announced it would start “fact-checking” President Trump’s tweets, yet more evidence has been exposed of the blatant anti-Trump bias at the most senior levels of the social media giant.
    In the past we have seen Project Veritas expose the ‘fact’ behind the so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ of shadow-banning for conservative voices on Twitter.
    former Twitter software engineer who explains how/why Twitter “shadow bans” certain users:
    Abhinav Vadrevu:  “One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content.”
    “So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it. I don’t know if Twitter does this anymore.”
    Meanwhile, Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:
    “Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”
    Then there is the company’s associate General Counsel, Jeff Rich (his LinkedIn page is here) who in January urged his 1,500 followers to “cull” and “excise” the “cancerous” president Trump from the herd.
    One wonders, Rich, does this violate Twitter’s “Abuse and harassment” rules?
    And more recently expressed his biased opinion:
    And now, as Jonathan Turley details below,  the latest controversy concerns the person who has said that he is in charge of “developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules,” Twitter’s “Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth.  Critics have highlighted fairly extreme postings from Roth calling Trump and his supporters Nazis.  I do not agree that the problem is Roth’s personal views or postings. The problem is his role and the rules at Twitter.
    The problem is anyone exercising this power of speech regulation. Indeed, as this controversy grew around Roth, Kathy Griffin is the latest poster to face calls for removal for effectively calling for Trump to kill himself.  Again, Griffin should be allowed to post such hateful thoughts and the rest of the world should be allowed to denounce her, again, for her unhinged humor.
    Roth has attacked Bernie Sanders supporters and proclaimed how he is working against Trump. He compared senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. He  has referred to Trump and his team as “ACTUAL NAZIS” and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a “personality-free bag of farts.” As Fox noted, “last August, Twitter suspended McConnell’s Twitter account, prompting the GOP to threaten to cut off advertising on the site until Twitter relented.”
    The attacks are numerous, raw, and offensive However, conservatives calling for him to be fired or his tweets censored are reaching the wrong conclusion.  
    The problem is not Roth but his role.  He has a right to express himself. I have no problem with Twitter hiring people with such political views and I believe it is a good thing for people to express themselves on social media.  Indeed, we have discussed the free speech concerns as private and public employers punish workers for their statements or actions in their private lives. We have addressed an array of such incidents, including social media controversies involving academics. In some cases, racially charged comments have been treated as free speech while in others they have resulted in discipline or termination. It is that lack of a consistent standard that has magnified free speech concerns.  We have previously discussed the issue of when it is appropriate to punishment people for conduct outside of the work place. We have followed cases where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once their names and employers are made known. (here and here and here and here and here and here).
    Roth’s comments highlight how bias is always a concern for those who take it upon themselves to decide who can speak or who must be “corrected” in communications with others.  Twitter is notorious for a lack of consistency and coherence in the enforcement of its rules.  However, regardless of such enforcement, there remains a core free speech issue in the regulation of speech. I recently criticized the calls of Democratic leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for greater censorship of the Internet and social media. Such calls have been growing for years but leaders like Schiff are citing the pandemic as a basis for speech monitoring and censorship. Roth is merely the personification of the problem of such speech regulation.  Again, the real problem is his role and Twitter’s rules.
    As Summit News’ Paul Joseph Watson notes, Roth has been head of site integrity at Twitter since July 2018 and is responsible for “election security” and “misinformation,” meaning he almost certainly played a key role in the decision to ‘fact-check’ Trump’s tweets.
    In the meantime, We await Twitter ‘fact-checking’ false claims about ‘Russian collusion’ or any other of the erroneous issues pushed by the blue check mark brigade that have proven to be spectacularly wrong.

    Don’t hold your breath…



    Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Site Is ‘Badly Biased’

    From Zero Hedge:

    Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has been sounding the alarm over the website for some time now – previously noting that the site had failed to reign in ‘bad actors’ and was ‘broken as a result.’
    Now, Sanger opines on the website’s overt political bias against conservatives. Read on below:
    Authored by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger
    Wikipedia Is Badly Biased
    Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given.
    Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. You might find this to be objectively correct; but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. party would treat it differently. On such a topic, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editors’ political alignment.
    Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and “Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency. Common words in the article are “false” and “falsely” (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as “false,” very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.
    I leave the glowing Hillary Clinton article as an exercise for the reader.
    Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view. No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices. More to the point, abortion opponents consider the fetus to be a human being with rights; their view, that it is not safe for the baby, is utterly ignored. To pick another, random issue, drug legalization, dubbed drug liberalization by Wikipedia, has only a little information about any potential hazards of drug legalization policies; it mostly serves as a brief for legalization, followed by a catalog of drug policies worldwide. Or to take an up-to-the-minute issue, the LGBT adoption article includes several talking points in favor of LGBT adoption rights, but omits any arguments against. On all such issues, the point is that true neutrality, to be carefully distinguished from objectivity, requires that the article be written in a way that makes it impossible to determine the editors’ position on the important controversies the article touches on.
    What about articles on religious topics? The first article I thought to look at had some pretty egregious instances of bias: the Jesus article. It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that “the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.” In another place, the article simply asserts, “the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” A great many Christians would take issue with such statements, which means it is not neutral for that reason—in other words, the very fact that most Christians believe in the historical reliability of the Gospels, and that they are wholly consistent, means that the article is biased if it simply asserts, without attribution or qualification, that this is a matter of “major uncertainty.” In other respects, the article can be fairly described as a “liberal” academic discussion of Jesus, focusing especially on assorted difficulties and controversies, while failing to explain traditional or orthodox views of those issues. So it might be “academic,” but what it is not is neutral in the original sense we defined for Wikipedia.
    Of course, similarly tendentious claims can be found in other articles on religious topics, as when the Christ (title) article claims,
    Although the original followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, e.g. in the Confession of Peter, Jesus was usually referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus, son of Joseph”.[11] Jesus came to be called “Jesus Christ” (meaning “Jesus the Khristós”, i.e. “Jesus the Messiah” or “Jesus the Anointed”) by later Christians, who believe that his crucifixion and resurrection fulfill the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.
    This article weirdly claims, or implies, a thing that no serious Biblical scholar of any sort would claim, viz., that Jesus was not given the title “Christ” by the original apostles in the New Testament. These supposed “later Christians” who used “Christ” would have to include the apostles Peter (Jesus’ first apostle), Paul (converted a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion), and Jude (Jesus’ brother), who were the authors of the bulk of the epistles of the New Testament. “Christ” can, of course, be found frequently in the epistles.3 Of course, those are not exactly “later Christians.” If the claim is simply that the word “Christ” does not appear much in the Gospels, that is true enough (though it can be found four times in the book of John), but it is also a reflection of the fact that the authors of the Gospels instead used “Messiah,” and quite frequently; the word means much the same as “Christ.” For example, he is called “Jesus the Messiah” in the very first verse of the New Testament (Matthew 1:1). Clearly, these claims are tendentious and represent a point of view that many if not most Christians would dispute.
    It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when the Establishment seems unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.
    The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untesteduntestable or proven ineffective.” In all these cases, genuine neutrality requires a different sort of treatment.
    Again, other examples could be found, in no doubt thousands of other, perfectly unexciting topics. These are just the first topics that came to mind, associated as they are with the culture wars, and their articles on those topics put Wikipedia very decidedly on one side of that war. You should not be able to say that about an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral.
    It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.4 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.
    Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.5
    The world would be better served by an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network, such as I proposed with the Encyclosphere. We will certainly develop such a network, but if it is to remain fully independent of all governmental and big corporate interests, funds are naturally scarce and it will take time.

    1. The misbegotten phrase “neutral point of view” is a Jimmy Wales coinage I never supported. If a text is neutral with regard to an issue, it lacks any “point of view” with regard to the issue; it does not take a “neutral point of view.” My preferred phrase was always “the neutrality policy” or “the nonbias policy.”[]
    2. On this, see my “Why Neutrality?“, published 2015 by Ballotpedia.[]
    3. Both in the form “Jesus Christ” (e.g., 1 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1) and in the form “Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2).[]
    4. That it was Wikipedia’s original notion, see the Nupedia “Lack of Bias” policy, which was the source of Wikipedia’s policy, and see also my final (2001) version of the Wikipedia neutrality policy. Read my “Why Neutrality?” for a lengthy discussion of this notion.[]
    5. UPDATE: In an earlier version of this blog post, I included some screenshots of Wikipedia Alexa rankings, showing a drop from 5 to 12 or 13. While this is perfectly accurate, the traffic to the site has been more or less flat for years, until the last few months, in which traffic spiked probably because of the Covid-19 virus. But since the drop in Alexa rankings do not seem to reflect a drop in traffic, I decided to remove the screenshots and a couple accompanying sentences.[]



      Hacking The Planet: The Climate Engineering Reality




      Rickards – Is War Next?

      Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,
      Remember the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong against Chinese authoritarianism?
      Well, guess what? They’re about to start again.
      And U.S.-Chinese relations could get even worse than they are right now.
      Are you prepared for a bumpy ride?
      Let’s unpack this…
      Last year’s protests came in response to a proposed law that would have allowed the extradition of Hong Kong residents to Beijing for trial on charges that arose in Hong Kong.
      That would have deprived Hong Kong residents of legal protections in local law and subjected prisoners to torture and summary execution.
      The legislation was proposed by Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who many consider a puppet of Beijing.
      The demonstrations grew exponentially, ultimately involving hundreds of thousands of protesters.
      The list of demands also grew to include more democracy and freedom and adherence to Hong Kong’s rule of law.
      Due to social media, these protests were seen around the world.
      The proposed bill behind the original protests was scrapped last October, which was a victory for the pro-democracy protesters.
      The protests didn’t end altogether, but tensions were at least diffused to a great extent and the world moved on.
      Well, here comes round two…
      China’s Communist parliament is preparing to roll out legislation that would ban “treason, secession, sedition (and) subversion” in Hong Kong.
      This is different from the previous legislation because this bill actually originates in Beijing, not Hong Kong. It’s a direct assault on Hong Kong’s democracy. The Chinese parliament would insert the legislation directly into Hong Kong’s constitution.
      It’s scheduled for passage next week.
      Pro-democracy activists have called for mass protests this weekend in response to what they rightly consider a Chinese invasion of their autonomy.
      We could be in for a fresh round of protests, with as many or more people. China’s reaction will be key.
      Will they try to put the protests down by force? That could have major consequences.
      Yesterday, news emerged that the U.S. Senate is introducing bipartisan legislation to impose sanctions on officials and business entities that enforce the new law.
      And President Trump warned yesterday that the U.S. would react “very strongly” to the Chinese legislation.
      In response, China’s foreign ministry warned Beijing would “fight back” against any U.S. interference.
      At a time when U.S.-Chinese relations are already at a low ebb due to China’s almost criminal handling of the coronavirus pandemic, it looks like things are about to get even worse.
      This situation could become very interesting.
      But you shouldn’t be surprised. The current trajectory of U.S.-China relations is following a familiar course. It started with the currency war…
      When my first book, Currency Wars, was published in 2011, I made the point that currency wars don’t exist all the time, but when they emerge they can last for 15 or 20 years.
      The reason is that the currency devaluations just go back and forth between major trading partners and no one is any further ahead in the long run.
      Readers said, “OK, we get that, but what comes next?”
      The answer is trade wars. Once currency devaluations fail, countries turn to tariffs to slow down imports and help their own exports.
      That’s where the U.S. and China are now, with the ongoing trade war (which could get worse).
      But that’s also a dead end from an economic perspective. Again, the question is: What comes next?
      Well, with history as a guide, we can see that today’s pattern is a repeat of what the world went through in the 1920s and 1930s.
      First came currency wars (1921–1936). Then came trade wars (1930–34) and then finally a shooting war (1939–1945).
      Are we heading for another shooting war with China? The signs are not good.
      Trade war tariffs can be weaponized to pursue geopolitical goals. Trump is using tariffs to punish China for its criminal negligence (or worse) in connection with the spread of the Wuhan virus to the U.S. and the rest of the world.
      This also has historical precedent.
      Between June and August 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt placed an oil embargo on Japan and froze Japan’s accounts in U.S. banks.
      In December 1941, the Japanese retaliated with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Will China now escalate its retaliation to the point of armed conflict?
      We’ll find out soon, possibly in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait. The latest reemergence of tensions in Hong Kong only adds kerosene to the fire.
      Investors should prepare for U.S.-China geopolitical tension to grow worse. Maybe a lot worse. That’s the lesson of history.



      Petition Calls For Investigation Into Twitter Censorship After Hiring Of Li Fei-Fei

      By Keoni Everington, of the Taiwan News
      A White House petition was created last week after news broke that the Twitter accounts of Chinese dissidents started to disappear after a controversial Chinese-American artificial intelligence (AI) expert was hired to serve on the company’s board.
      On May 11, Twitter announced in a press release that it was hiring Li Fei-Fei (李飛飛), an AI expert and former vice president of Google, to its board of directors as a “new independent director” with immediate effect. Li quit Google in 2018 after a trail of leaked internal emails revealed that she appeared to be more concerned about the public relations damage to Google’s image if news broke about the company’s work on Project Maven than the ethical issues raised by over 3,000 Google employees.
      Project Maven is a U.S. Department of Defense AI project that seeks to use the technology to help military drones select targets from video footage.
      During her tenure at Google, there is no public record of Li objecting to the controversial Project Dragonfly, which was meant to be a search engine that would suit China’s censorship rules, as she opened an AI research facility in Beijing.
      When she took the helm of Google’s new AI center in Beijing, Li was quoted in Chinese media as using the CCP slogan “stay true to our founding mission” and said that “China has awakened.” In addition, Li allegedly has ties to a student association that is affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) United Front, according to Radio Free Asia.
      A week after Li joined Twitter, a Chinese writer who goes by the handle Caijinglengyan (財經冷眼), discovered that four of his accounts were simultaneously deleted on May 18. He did not receive an explanation until May 23, when he was told his accounts had been taken down for violating Twitter’s rules against posting identical content on duplicate accounts.
      我是财经冷眼,可能因做了深挖李飞飞红色背景的节目,导致财经冷眼、冷山时评、自由风等4个推号同时封杀!新官上任,果然越来越红了!
      希望大家帮忙转发,找回失去的网友!同时我也在申诉,并联系媒体报道!不排除法律起诉的选项! 今天封我,后面可能会封任何批评中共的平台!希望推特作恶不要太离谱
      View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

      1,967 people are talking about this

      He countered that he had only posted content on one of the accounts and used the other to retweet the original post. He pointed out that Twitter does not have a policy precluding a person from having more than one account.
      The writer stated that he believes the real reason for his account cancellations was that, on May 17, he tweeted that Twitter’s new board member has a “red background.” In the post, he alleged that she is a member of a student association affiliated with the CCP’s United Front and has close ties with “Second Generation” and “Third-Generation Reds.”
      Caijinglengyan claimed that many other Twitter accounts used by Chinese dissidents were suddenly suspended without notice. After he contacted them, he found that they had also criticized Li or started commenting about Li just before their accounts were banned.
      The writer listed @beacon__news (灯塔爆料社) and @kevinheaven9 (Calvin看美国) as other Twitter users who found their Twitter accounts suddenly shut down. He claimed that one Twitter user simply wrote “Li Fei-Fei is coming, I have to run,” and soon found that both his primary account and secondary account had been suspended.
      French-based Chinese dissident Wang Longmeng (王龍蒙) wrote that Twitter’s ban on those who criticized Li and exposed her background “was undoubtedly related to Li Feifei’s appointment as a director, because criticism and negative information were banned, which is Beijing characteristic,” reported Liberty Times. He believes that Twitter was quickly “dyed red” after Li took charge.
      On May 20, a petition was created on the White House website titled “Call for a thorough investigation on Twitter’s violation of freedom of speech.” The creator of the petition wrote that Twitter is suppressing criticism of the CCP and suspending dissident accounts while pro-Beijing accounts remain unscathed.
      The petition listed May 18 as a date when many “anti-CCP” Twitter users found their accounts permanently suspended. The author of the document pointed out Li’s involvement with Project Maven and alleged that she was engaged in extensive military-technical programs while running Google’s AI center in Beijing.

      The document then alleged that Li continues to have “close ties with top leaders of the CCP.” The petition closed by calling on the U.S. government to investigate “Twitter’s violation of freedom of speech, and on Dr. FeiFei Li’s collaborations with the CCP, a threat to national security.”



      Trump ban on fetal tissue research blocks coronavirus treatment effort

      A senior scientist at a government biomedical research laboratory has been thwarted in his efforts to conduct experiments on possible treatments for the new coronavirus because of the Trump administration’s restrictions on research with human fetal tissue.
      The scientist, Kim Hasenkrug, an immunologist at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Montana, has been appealing for nearly a month to top NIH officials, arguing that the pandemic warrants an exemption to a ban imposed last year prohibiting government researchers from using tissue from abortions in their work.
      According to several researchers familiar with the situation, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive internal dispute, such experiments could be particularly fruitful. Just months ago, before the new coronavirus began to infect people around the world, other U.S. scientists made two highly relevant discoveries. They found that specialized mice could be transplanted with human fetal tissue that develops into lungs — the part of the body the new coronavirus invades. These “humanized mice,” they also found, could then be infected with coronaviruses — to which ordinary mice are not susceptible — closely related to the one that causes the new disease, covid-19.
      Outside researchers said the scientists who created those mice have offered to give them to the Rocky Mountain Lab, which has access to the new virus that causes covid-19, so the mice could be infected with the source of the pandemic and experiments could be run on potential treatments. Candidates include an existing drug known to boost patients’ immune systems in other circumstances, as well as blood serum from patients recovering from covid-19.
      “Kim Hasenkrug is one of the world experts in immune responses to persistent viral infection, including HIV and a whole bunch of other viruses,” said Irving Weissman, a leading stem cell researcher at Stanford University. In addition, the Montana NIH site has a biosafety lab equipped with high-level protections for experiments with dangerous microbes.
      “It isn’t clear if this added layer of urgent investigations will find more effective” treatments for people infected in the pandemic than other approaches being tried, Weissman said, “but it’s stupid not to try.”
      No therapies or vaccines for the new coronavirus exist yet.
      The inability of the Montana lab, part of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to pursue these experiments on the coronavirus is the latest example of disruptions to scientists’ work caused by the administration’s restrictions on research involving fetal tissue.
      “When I hear the vice president saying [they’re] doing everything they can to find vaccines [and treatments], I know that is not true,” said one scientist familiar with the situation, referring to Vice President Pence’s daily news briefings of the White House’s coronavirus task force. “Anything we do at this point could save hundreds of thousands of lives. If you wait, it’s too late.”
      Caitlin Oakley, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes NIH, said, “no decision has been made” about Rocky Mountain’s request. She added that the administration’s “bold, decisive actions” to respond to the pandemic include “kick-starting the development of vaccines and therapeutics through every possible avenue.”
      Hasenkrug has been forbidden by federal officials to talk publicly since the administration began to reconsider fetal tissue funding rules in the fall of 2018 at the prodding of social conservatives who oppose abortion and are part of President Trump’s political base.
      The fetal tissue is donated by women undergoing elective abortions, and critics say that it is unethical to use the material and that taxpayer money should not be used for research that relies on abortion.
      “Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President Trump’s administration,” HHS said in announcing its revised policy late last spring.
      Under the policy Trump announced then, university researchers or other outside scientists face new restrictions on federal funding of such work. If an NIH grant proposal is approved through the normal scientific review process, it must then be evaluated by a new ethics advisory board that was announced months ago but does not yet exist. This winter, NIH officials officially invited nominations to the panel for the current year, but its members have not yet been determined, and no date has been set for it to convene.
      The restrictions for government researchers such as Hasenkrug — known as NIH’s intramural scientists — are more severe. Those scientists have been banned from pursuing studies that involve fetal tissue. Hasenkrug was at the time of the ban collaborating on humanized mouse research aimed at a possible cure for HIV.
      According to the scientists familiar with the events, a researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last month offered to send to Rocky Mountain nearly three dozen mice implanted with the human lung tissue that he and colleagues had recently shown could be infected with coronaviruses. There are enough of them for experiments with three or four potential treatments, the scientists said.
      The offer came six months after the UNC scientists published their findings in the journal Nature Biotechnology about having succeeded in implanting human fetal lung tissue into mice with their own immune systems removed. The mice then grew human lung structures and were able to be infected with coronaviruses and other viruses to which mice ordinarily are not susceptible.
      A senior UNC scientist, who has been cautioned by the university not to speak publicly about the research, according to other scientists familiar with the situation, did not respond to requests for comment.
      On Feb. 19, two people said, Hasenkrug wrote to a senior NIH official, asking for permission to use those mice and run experiments related to covid-19. He eventually was told that his request had been passed on to senior HHS officials.
      Since then, he has written repeatedly to NIH, laying out in greater detail the experiments he wants to undertake and why several alternatives to the fetal tissue-implanted mice would not be as useful. In one appeal to NIH, Hasenkrug wrote that the mice he was offered are more than a year old and have a relatively short time remaining to live, so they should be used quickly, according to Kerry Lavender, a Canadian researcher familiar with the correspondence.
      Hasenkrug has not received an answer as to whether the administration will allow him to proceed, scientists familiar with his request said.
      A person familiar with where things stand, speaking on the condition of anonymity about the internal dynamic, said the requests had been forwarded about two weeks ago to the White House’s Domestic Policy Council and that HHS and NIH were waiting for a decision there.
      Late last week, Lavender, a former postdoctoral trainee at Rocky Mountain who helped develop a technique to implant mice with fetal tissue, heard from Hasenkrug, her mentor, asking whether she might undertake the coronavirus research that he was not allowed to do.
      Lavender, an assistant professor at the University of Saskatchewan, said in an interview that she moved back to her native Canada less than two years ago because she wanted to continue pursuing fetal tissue studies and could see that the Trump administration was hostile to such research.
      She said she is scrambling to try to carry out the experiments but is uncertain whether “we can pull it off. . . . I’m a new investigator with only so much funding,” she said, adding that she does not have immediate access to the kind of biohazard containment facility needed to do the work safely.
      “If we were able to do this within the NIH, we would be able to do this much more quickly,” Lavender said. “Because the NIH budget all comes through the government, they can easily collaborate and fund what they are doing. . . . It’s much harder when we’re all separate entities to try to arrange the funding.”
      According to one of the scientists, an experiment would take perhaps a week or 10 days to show whether a potential treatment was effective in the mice. Any promising therapy would then require testing in humans and approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
      Stanford’s Weissman said one potential therapy that should be tried is a drug, already FDA-approved, that he developed initially for cancers that he and Hasenkrug more recently have found to be effective in boosting immune response in mice. People with weakened immune systems are particularly vulnerable to severe illness or death from covid-19.
      “Will it work? We don’t know that,” Weissman said. But, he said, “this is a way to bring more minds and more hands” to the search for a treatment for the new pandemic.



      Much-hyped Moderna mRNA-1273 Covid-19 Vaccine Uses Aborted Fetal Cells — Sanofi Pasteur’s Version Does Not

      From Newsbreak:
      CLEARWATER, Fla. — In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, pharmaceutical companies are racing to provide a vaccine to prevent further spread of the disease. Unfortunately, Moderna, the company that has been recently touted in news headlines for its developing mRNA-1273 vaccine to fight the virus, uses aborted fetal cells.
      Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, a prolife organization whose mission is to end the use of aborted fetal material in vaccines and medicines, said her suspicions were raised after checking Moderna’s patents and in particular, the use of the Spike (S) protein.
      The idea behind using this Spike protein in a vaccine with messenger RNA (mRNA) is to teach the patient’s immune system to produce its own protein antibodies to block and destroy the virus so the person will not become infected. Unfortunately, Vinnedge said her heart sank when she discovered that Spike protein was produced using HEK 293 aborted fetal cells.
      “It was detailed in several science publications,” she said. “And in light of the public fear and panic, I did not want to be the bearer of bad news.” Vinnedge said the heavy burden of revealing that knowledge made her dig further into others’ research. That’s when she found another well- known pharmaceutical company had a better solution.
      Enter, Sanofi Pasteur which is using its own recombinant DNA platform to produce a Covid-19 vaccine. According to the Department of HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) reports, Sanofi is using the DNA of the baculovirus expression platform, which is also used in their licensed Flublok Quadrivalent vaccine.
      As in most seasonal flu vaccines, the need to produce large quantities of vaccine quickly has been a problem for many years as pharmaceutical companies used chicken eggs to cultivate their viruses. It takes several months and millions of eggs needed to produce the vaccines and so many companies began to turn to other cell lines for faster production.
      One such company was Protein Sciences whose recombinant DNA platform is based on insect cells. Their Sf9 cell line comes from the fall armyworm and is highly susceptible to infection. It has been used for several years in producing influenza vaccines. In 2017, Sanofi Pasteur bought Protein Sciences and is using this same platform for their newly developing Covid-19 vaccine which will allow them the flexibility to make millions of doses of vaccine quickly.
      “This is great news for millions of people world-wide who are concerned with the use of aborted fetal material in life-saving treatments or vaccines,” stated Ms. Vinnedge. “There is a multitude of moral options that are safer and quite frankly, utilize a more modern technology.”
      Vinnedge said she was particularly annoyed to see a recent article in the Washington Post trying to assert that President Trump’s ban on the use of aborted fetal tissue was blocking important research and treatments for Covid-19 virus.
      “That accusation is laughable at best and nothing more than a political maneuver,” stated Vinnedge. “In fact, we have morally produced treatments for patients who are already infected, notably Hydroxychloroquine or Plaquenil. And there are more promising treatments on the way to prevent infection entirely. President Trump has done a great job of promoting morally responsible research ensuring that all Americans can have the protection they need.”
      “It is deplorable that anyone would want to exploit the remains of aborted babies for financial profit especially when so many people will refuse to use those products because of their deeply held religious, moral and pro-life convictions?” she added. “We applaud the efforts of companies such as Sanofi Pasteur who are providing morally acceptable options!”
      References: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2020/02/18/science.abb2507.DC1/abb2507-Wrapp-SM.pdf (Material and Methods – Spike S Protein)
      https://www.sinobiological.com/research/virus/human-coronavirus-spike
      https://www.acrobiosystems.com/P3098-2019-nCoV-%28COVID-19%29-S-protein-Full-Length-%28R683A-R685A%29-His-Tag.html
      https://www.biovendor.com/sars-cov-2-2019-ncov-spike-glycoprotein-s1-hek293-recombinant-2?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=organic
      https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/02/18/hhs-engages-sanofis-recombinant-technology-for-2019-novel-coronavirus-vaccine.html
      https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20200311/sanofi-exploring-possiblity-of-covid-19-vaccine-that-would-be-produced-in-poconos
      https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/sanofi-pasteur%C2%A0will-deploy-its-recombinant-dna-platform-produce-recombinant-2019-novel-coronavirus
      https://www.fda.gov/media/123144/download (Sanofi Flublok Quadrivalent pack insert)
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/trump-ban-on-fetal-tissue-research-blocks-coronavirus-treatment-effort/2020/03/18/ddd9f754-685c-11ea-abef-020f086a3fab_story.html



      French Intelligence Warned Of ‘Catastrophic Leak’ From Wuhan Lab

      From Zero Hedge: 

      Eleven years before the joint construction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, French intelligence services warned Paris that China’s reputation for poor bio-security could lead to a ‘catastrophic leak,’ according to the Daily Mail.
      In 2004, the EU’s chief brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier, ignored those warnings – signing off on the lab’s construction when he was the French foreign minister.
      According to the report, French intel also warned that Paris could lose control of the facility, and that Beijing could even use it to make biowarfare weapons. And in 2015, as the laboratory prepared to open, those concerns were realized after the French architects of the project said the CCP had shut them out. In fact, 50 French scientists were supposed to help the Chinese run the laboratory properly, but never ended up going.
      The Mail discovered Barnier’s involvement in the Wuhan Institute of Virology during an in-depth investigation into French connections to the lab – where many believe the coronavirus escaped from, as the WIV housed a group of scientists who received international condemnation for creating chimeric strains that could infect humans. Under the ‘escaped’ scenario, an infected WIV employee unknowingly brought it into the Wuhan wet market, exposing what would become roughly half of the first known cluster of cases.
      Biologists who carried out a landmark study say they were ‘surprised’ to find the virus was ‘already pre-adapted to human transmission’.
      Jacques Chirac, the French president at the time of the deal, pushed for the Wuhan institute to be set up after the 2003 SARS outbreak, which affected 26 countries and resulted in more than 8,000 cases and 774 deaths. Mr Chirac, along with his pro-Beijing prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, promised French funding and expertise in return for a share of the intellectual copyright on the lab’s discoveries. –Daily Mail
      France’s Chirac government saw the deal to construct the WIV as a way to strengthen trade with China, despite warnings from its own intelligence, the French equivalent to MI6, which repeatedly raised concerns over lack of international control and ‘transparency’ issues.
      “What you have to understand is that a P4 [high-level bio-security] laboratory is like a nuclear reprocessing plant. It’s a bacteriological atomic bomb,” said one source, adding: “The viruses that are tested are extremely dangerous – diving suits, decontamination airlocks etc must be followed to the letter.”
      Alain Merieux, the French billionaire who was instrumental in setting up the Wuhan laboratory in partnership with his Institut Merieux in Lyons, abandoned the project in 2015, saying: ‘I am giving up the co-chairmanship of [the] P4 [laboratory], a Chinese tool. It belongs to them, even if it was developed with technical assistance from France.’
      According to Le Figaro, a diplomat with a close knowledge of the deal added: ‘We knew the risks involved and thought that the Chinese would control everything and quickly eject us from the project.
      We believed that providing this cutting-edge technology to a country with an endless power agenda would risk exposing France in return.’ –Daily Mail
      And in 2015, concerns were validated after China implemented their new policy of ‘dual use’ technologies, which allows for the military use of civilian technology.
      “The aim was to develop vaccines following the SARS crisis between 2002 and 2004,” said the Mail‘s source. “There was much co-operation on a range of issues between France and China at the time, and Michel Barnier was implementing government policy.”
      “The issue of bio-security was certainly a cause for concern within agencies including the DGSE,” the source added.
      Meanwhile, the WIV’s Shi Zhengli – known as “bat woman” for her controversial experiments creating bat coronaviruses that can infect humans – and who swore ‘on her life’ that the COVID-19 isn’t from her lab, said in a recent interview on Chinese state television that viruses being discovered now are “just the tip of the iceberg.
      “If we want to prevent human beings from suffering from the next infectious disease outbreak, we must go in advance to learn of these unknown viruses carried by wild animals in nature and give early warnings,” Shi told CGTN, adding “If we don’t study them there will possibly be another outbreak.
      Will be, or won’t be another outbreak?



      Leading coronavirus vaccine development uses cells of aborted babies

      From Preciouslife.com

      As the lockdown continues across the world, pharmaceutical companies are accelerating their efforts to provide a vaccine to prevent the spread of the virus. Unfortunately, Moderna, the company which has gained prominence in news headlines for developing Mrna-1273 vaccine to fight the disease, uses cells of aborted babies.
      Although alternatives exist which could be considered morally acceptable, they are not getting as much coverage as Moderna’s vaccine work.
      Suspicions about the vaccine were raised after checking Moderna’s patents and in particular, the use of the Spike (S) protein.
      The idea behind using this Spike protein in a vaccine with messenger RNA (mRNA) is to teach the patient’s immune system to produce its own protein antibodies to block and destroy the virus so the person will not become infected. However, as detailed in several science publications, Spike protein is produced using HEK 293 aborted fetal cells.
      Bernadette Smyth of Precious Life slammed the use of aborted babies in the production of a coronavirus vaccine. She stated: “It is horrifying that companies would seek to exploit the remains of aborted babies for financial gain, especially when so many people are totally opposed to such a vaccine because of their moral, ethical and pro-life convictions. We must seek morally sound and ethical solutions, as opposed to this grave violation of human dignity which capitalises off of the death and destruction of aborted babies.”
      Since the 1960s, several commonly used vaccines have been researched and manufactured using aborted tissue or cell lines originating from aborted babies. The common vaccines using aborted cell lines today include chickenpox, shingles, hepatitis A, and Rubella (MMR).
      The use of such vaccines is a deeply troubling moral and ethical violation for people across the world who understand abortion for what it is; the deliberate killing of living human children in the womb. With the panic and fear created by the Coronavirus Pandemic, it can be expected that pressure will mount (social, and perhaps, governmental) for as many people as possible to be vaccinated for Coronavirus.
      There have been increasingly frequent claims from scientists and some in the government that life won’t return to normal until a vaccine is available.
      Professor Neil Ferguson – of Imperial College London, which is advising the government on its coronavirus response, warned that a vaccine would be necessary.
      “We will have to maintain some form of social distancing, a significant level of social distancing, probably indefinitely until we have a vaccine available,” he told BBC Radio 4.
      As calls for a vaccine, which could be mandatory for some, increase, many who are opposed for ethical, moral or religious reasons are speaking out.
      Yesterday (Sunday 19th April), Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic has said that his opposition to vaccines may prevent him from returning to tennis after the coronavirus pandemic.
      There have been calls for all tennis players to be vaccinated when the season eventually resumes, but such a plan would leave World No. 1 Djokovic facing a dilemma.
      “Personally I am opposed to vaccination and I wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel,” Djokovic said in a live Facebook chat with several fellow Serbian athletes on Sunday
      “But if it becomes compulsory, what will happen? I will have to make a decision,” he added.
      There are also many who would like to have the protection of a coronavirus vaccine for themselves or loved ones, but will be unable to participate if any part of the research or manufacture of the vaccine has been done with aborted tissue or cell lines originating from abortions.
      Other well-known pharmaceutical companies could offer this, however, these solutions are getting notably less press. For instance, Sanofi Pasteur is using its own recombinant DNA platform to manufacture a Covid-19 vaccine. Another company offering an alternative to fetal cell lines was Protein Sciences whose recombinant DNA platform uses insect cells. Their Sf9 cell line comes from the fall armyworm and has been used effectively for several years in producing influenza vaccines.
      In 2017, Sanofi Pasteur bought Protein Sciences and is using this same platform for their newly developing Covid-19 vaccine which will allow them the flexibility to make millions of doses of vaccine quickly.