In the scorching summer of 2021, a momentous decision swept across Europe, sparking a whirlwind of emotions among parents, who had fallen for the 24/7 propaganda, eagerly awaiting a ray of hope for their children.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) had finally granted emergency use approval for the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 12 to 15.

Relief and elation surged through the hearts of countless naive parents who saw this as a beacon of protection against the alleged pandemic.

Yet, the winds of fortune took an unexpected turn as the vaccine rollout for children commenced. Startling reports emerged, revealing a distressing surge in excess deaths among the young ones across the continent. The sense of optimism quickly faded among the thousands of families affected and was replaced by a grim reality that cast a shadow over the hopes of many.

Tragically, the statistics paint a haunting picture, with a staggering 362% surge in excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14 by the thirty-fourth week of 2024. These numbers whisper a chilling tale of consequences that were foreseen by many silenced and heavily censored voices.

Back in 2020, as the establishment desperately sought to fast-track the use of mRNA technology disguised as a vaccine against the alleged pandemic, COVID-19 injections were still in the embryonic stages of development, treading a precarious path toward regulatory approval.

To hasten their availability, regulatory agencies like the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) invoked emergency use authorizations (EUAs), granting a temporary lifeline to these novel and dangerous vaccines.

These EUAs acted as regulatory mechanisms, permitting the usage of medical products in dire circumstances, such as a pandemic, even before they completed the rigorous journey of full regulatory approval.

It was an unprecedented measure taken in the face of an unprecedented crisis. But the alleged COVID-19 pandemic has proven to not be a threat to children, making future decisions by these regulatory bodies extremely questionable and possibly criminal.

One crucial reason why mRNA vaccines had not been widely employed in the general population until December 2020 was the specter of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE).

This phenomenon haunted the corridors of scientific discourse, raising concerns that vaccination with mRNA vaccines could potentially exacerbate the disease, rendering those inoculated more susceptible to its clutches.

History had already witnessed a chilling episode of ADE during the development of a dengue fever vaccine. Initial trials indicated promise, displaying protection against the virus for those unscathed by prior infections.

Sadly, in individuals who had encountered a different strain of the virus before, the vaccine seemed to amplify the risk of severe illness, a grim testament to the treacherous nature of ADE.

Similar tales emerged from numerous animal studies, where potential “vaccines” instigated lung inflammation and other adverse effects upon subsequent exposure to the virus. The vaccine-induced immune response, rather than neutralizing the virus, wrought havoc on lung tissue, leaving a trail of unintended consequences.

Additionally, the ominous specter of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) loomed large during respiratory virus vaccine trials, including those against coronaviruses.

For instance, trials for a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine illuminated a disconcerting pattern: vaccinated infants faced an increased risk of hospitalization and more severe respiratory illness upon encountering the virus.

The immune response triggered by the vaccine, rather than safeguarding against the virus, seemed to trigger an overreaction of the immune system, exacerbating the disease’s symptoms.

Respiratory viruses, such as coronaviruses and RSV, had long been recognized as grave threats to vulnerable populations, especially infants and the elderly.

However, the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, supposedly responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, appeared to spare the younger generation, raising perplexing questions about the extension of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Covid-19 vaccinations to children.

The absence of an imminent threat to children further muddled the decision-making process.

The ultimate goal couldn’t have been containment, as real-world data revealed an ironic twist: the Covid-19 vaccinated population seemed to exhibit a higher likelihood of infection and transmission compared to their unvaccinated counterparts. The very shield intended to protect against the virus appeared to falter in its mission.

The eye-opening chart, encompassing the period from January 3rd to March 27th, 2022, unveiled the total number of Covid-19 cases categorized by vaccination status and age group in England. The data, extracted from the the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) Week 5, (page 43), Week 9 (page 41) and Week 13 (page 41) Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance reports , painted a vivid picture of the disconcerting reality.

Similarly, another revealing chart illuminated the case rates per 100,000 people, again segregated by vaccination status and age group in England. The alarming disparity emerged: case rates soared among the triple-vaccinated population in every age group, leaving a gaping chasm between them and the unvaccinated.

The divide only grew wider as time passed.

The numbers spoke volumes, revealing that the Covid-19 vaccine recipients faced a higher risk of infection compared to the unvaccinated populace. The evidence begged for a closer examination.

But that examination has still not happened, and sadly, in a recent analysis, EuroMOMO, an organization entrusted with official statistical data from European countries, published data that revealed a disheartening correlation between the approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children and a surge in excess deaths among the young ones.

The data, collected from 26 participating countries across Europe (not including Ukraine) paints a grim picture that simply cannot be ignored.

The chilling figures, extending up to the 34th week of 2024, will most definitely capture the attention of concerned minds.

It is also worth noting that the data only covers 26 out of the 44 countries in Europe, excluding Ukraine. Meaning any claims attributing the findings to the ongoing war can be dismissed immediately.

During week 21 of 2021, the European Medicines Agency extended the emergency use authorization of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, first to children aged 12 to 15 and later to the age group of 5 to 11.

However, the weeks following the approval witnessed a shocking rise in excess deaths among children, an upward trend that persisted unabated.

Between week 21 of 2021 and week 52 of 2021, an alarming tally of 310 excess deaths among 0 to 14-year-old children should have sent shockwaves through the continent. But the data was suppressed.

The contrast couldn’t have been starker, as the period between week 1 and week 21 of 2021 saw 515 fewer deaths than expected.

And the fact the surge in excess deaths aligns perfectly with the EMA’s approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 12 to 15 cannot be merely dismissed as coincidence.

The distressing trend continued throughout 2022, with a total of 1,639 excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14 across the 26 European countries, painting a grim reality that cannot be dismissed.

Thankfully, 2023 was slightly better with 138 excess deaths recorded among children.

But sadly, we have again seen a huge increase in 2024 with 442 excess deaths recorded among children across Europe as of week 34 of 2024.

The somber figures speak of an unprecedented 335%/42x surge in excess deaths since the European Medicines Agency extended emergency use authorization of the Covid-19 vaccine to children aged 12 to 15.

The contrast with the previous period couldn’t be starker.

From week 44 of 2018 to week 21 of 2021, 735 fewer deaths occurred among children aged 0 to 14 than expected.

The staggering increase in excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14 across 26 European countries, including the UK, France, Spain, Italy, and Germany, paints a bleak picture of an astounding 335% surge since the European Medicines Agency extended emergency use authorization of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to children aged 12 to 15.

This distressing reality raises serious concerns, considering the experimental nature of the injections and its previous avoidance due to the risks of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED).

Moreover, administering the vaccine to children, who were not at significant risk from the alleged Covid-19 virus, seems perplexing in light of the 873 fewer deaths recorded among children aged 0 to 14 across Europe in 2020, from the onset of the alleged pandemic to the year’s end.

The European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries have also approved certain insects for human consumption, with clear labeling requirements for food products containing insects.

Gaps in US regulations have enabled “alternative protein” startups to enter the insect food market – with the backing of figures such as Bill Gates and government agencies including the United Nations (“UN”), the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) and the National Science Foundation.

The trend towards insect-based foods is linked to the UN’s Agenda 2030 SDGs, promoting sustainability and forced behavioral modifications.

“The insect craze is intimately connected to the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),” said Michael Rectenwald, author of ‘The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unravelling the Global Agenda’.

“The World Economic Forum – perhaps the largest driving force behind so-called ‘alternative proteins’ – frequently touts Singapore’s compliance with Agenda 2030, so the decision to prioritize insect-based foods is not surprising,” Seamus Bruner, author of ‘Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life’ and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, said.

Proponents of insects as food for humans, including the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (“FAO”), claim that they are more sustainable and have a lower carbon footprint compared to traditional livestock. However, animal-based foods like beef, pork, and poultry are more efficient and healthy sources of protein.

“The truth is that beef, pork, poultry and other animal-based foods are the most efficient and healthy sources of protein. These climate fanatics pushing insect-based foods are scaring people into adopting less healthy diets,” Bruner told The Defender.

While advocates see insects as a viable protein source for the future, there are concerns about safety and health risks, such as parasites and allergies, and it raises questions about the motives behind promoting insect-based foods.

“The justification for insects is to produce protein using fewer inputs: to save the planet by reducing climate change, methane from cows, less pollution,” Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said. “But just because it is protein doesn’t mean it’s good for us.”

Nass cited parasites that could be spread by insects, difficulties in digesting insects, and common allergies to chitin – commonly found on the exoskeleton of insects.

She suggested that one reason behind the shift to insects as food is “to cause emotional harm: to degrade, debase, downgrade human beings” and that beef is “being demonized,” potentially to “weaken the species.”

Dutch journalist Elze van Hamelen told The Defender that using insect ingredients for pet food also poses a risk to public health, citing a 2019 study that found parasites in 244 of 300 insect farms and pet stores that were investigated.

In Singapore, local businesses are embracing insect-based foods, with some already offering insect-infused dishes. Educational programs are being implemented to inform consumers, including children, about the benefits of consuming insects.

Some educational programs began before approval had been obtained.  For example, Singapore’s first start-up to make food from insects conducted workshops and educational sessions at almost a hundred schools before the Singapore Food Agency approved insects for human consumption. Surveys conducted after the program found that about 80% of students would be willing to try the insects after they are approved.

Educational programs are part of the psychological techniques deployed to get people to accept insects as food.  Several studies in 2020, 2021, and 2022 suggested that behavioral science concepts like nudging should be used to influence public acceptance of insect-based foods. The truth is that nudging is already being widely used to implement the UN’s Agenda 2030.

According to Rectenwald, “sustainability” is code language for coerced reductions in consumption and forced behavioral modifications.

In addition to debasing people and so gaining psychological power over them, there is enormous financial gain to be had for those driving the insect-based diets agenda.

“Bill Gates claims his investments in alternative proteins are to save the planet,” Bruner said. “What he does not say is that they are part of a strategy to monopolize the protein industry – for profit – as he lobbies to ban animal-based competition.”

The above is summarised from the article ‘Sign of Things to Come: Singapore Approves 16 Insects for Human Food’ by Michael Nevradakis, PhD, as published by The Defender.  You can read the full article HERE.

Featured image: Fried silkworm pupas in Thailand. Silkworms are among the species on Singapore’s list of insects approved for human consumption. Source: The Guardian.

The use of the mRNA platform is “a gross medical negligence… really, this criminal negligence now, knowing what we do,” he said.

UK’s Top Oncologist Prof Angus Dalgleish, Demands Immediate Ban on mRNA Gene Therapy Over Escalating Turbo Cancer Crisis

By Aussie17, 29 April 2024

Well well well, two of the most senior oncologists in the world this week shared their alarming findings with the experimental covid gene therapies. First, we have Prof. Fukushima, and now Prof Angus Dalgleish has reiterated his call to ban all mRNA vaccinations immediately in a forum with Senator Ron Johnson on 26 April 2024.

Throw Professor Gabriel Oon in there too, Singapore’s most senior oncologist and founding President of Singapore’s Society of Oncology, who has been warning about the dangers of mRNA tech for some time now.

Could it be that these eminent oncologists from different parts of the world suddenly stopped supporting experimental vaccines and together started saying no to mRNA gene therapy as if they planned it? Let’s get to the heart of it: what these three vocal critics have in common is that they’re retired. This means they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs or money for speaking up. But there are many others still working who keep quiet because they’re afraid of risking their jobs.

So, here comes Prof. Angus Dalgleish. He’s not just any doctor making noise online; he’s a major player in the health field, the genius behind the discovery of the CD4 receptor, and now the head of The Institute of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Discovering the CD4 receptor is a massive deal because it’s like finding the secret entrance that the HIV virus uses to invade the body’s cells, causing AIDS. Prof. Dalgleish’s discovery has led to breakthroughs in medicine, allowing us to create treatments that lock this entrance and keep the virus out. Because of his work, we’ve been able to give people fighting HIV a fighting chance. That’s why Prof Dalgleish is such a big name in the battle against HIV/AIDS.

Regarding the mRNA gene therapy, Prof. Dalgleish didn’t just talk about the bad stuff linked to spike proteins, like blood clotting and the scary Guillain-Barre syndrome. He went even further, sharing stories about his patients. These were people who had been doing well in their fight against cancer, but after getting the booster shot, they faced big setbacks. Their cancer came back worse than before. “I started to see in my melanoma clinic patients who’d been stable for years, who suddenly came in, relapsed. Sometimes the relapse was quite vicious. I mean, they had very bad disease. We had to treat them all over again,” he said. This shows how tough things got for them after the booster.

On top of that, Prof Angus Dalgleish watched three of his friends get the booster shot because they wanted to travel after being trapped at home for two to three years. Tragically, all three of them saw their cancer come back. Even worse, two of them died because the cancer didn’t respond to the treatments that usually work. This heartbreaking experience is why Dalgleish has started to speak out so strongly. He calls the use of mRNA platform in infectious disease “a gross medical negligence… really, this criminal negligence now, knowing what we do.” If that’s not a mic drop moment, I don’t know what is.

But why are Prof. Dalgleish and his fellow big-shot cancer doctors the only ones speaking up loudly while others stay quiet? It’s simple. They can. Being retired means they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs for saying what they think is wrong with the vaccines. This freedom lets them talk openly about their concerns.

Prof. Dalgleish is echoing what his oncology colleagues are calling for: a complete stop to using all mRNA gene therapy. He thinks the booster shot, once praised during the pandemic, is actually causing more problems than it solves. So, what do we have here, folks? A trio of retired oncological rebels, wielding nothing but their knowledge and experience, standing up against an industry seemingly hell-bent on its own agenda. It’s a stark reminder of the price of silence and the value of speaking out, no matter how heavy the crown. Let the rallying cry of Prof. Angus Dalgleish, Prof. Fukushima, and Prof. Gabriel Oon echo far and wide: It’s time to question, time to demand better, and, dare I say, time to listen to those no longer shackled by the golden handcuffs of job security.

(The Daily Exposé)—The People’s Vaccine Inquiry was launched yesterday.  So far Dr. Jonathan Engler, Dr. Ros Jones, Dr. Dean Patterson, Dr. Liz Evans, Patrick Fagan, Nick Hunt and Dr. Clare Craig have submitted evidence.  They are encouraging other experts to submit their witness statements, which can be done using THIS email link.

In the first half of her testimony, Dr. Craig spoke about the “safety” of the COVID injections.  In the second half, she spoke about the “efficacy” of the vaccines followed by answering questions put to her by science journalist Will Jones.  Below we have only noted remarks she made in the first half.

MHRA Fails to Perform its Duties and Tells Lies

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care in the United Kingdom.  It is responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe for use in the UK.

People think of “vaccine” as a modern miracle Dr. Craig told the People’s Vaccine Inquiry.  “The word is almost synonymous with ‘safe and effective’.  However, what has been called COVID vaccines are neither safe nor effective and have been pulled from the market long ago,” she said.

The term “safe and effective” was first used to market thalidomide, Dr. Craig said. Thalidomide is a medication that was first introduced in the 1950s as a sedative and treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women. However, it was later found to cause severe birth defects in thousands of children born to mothers who took the drug during pregnancy.  It was subsequently banned in most countries and its use was heavily restricted.

“After the thalidomide scandal when at least 5,000 babies had been damaged and at least 5,000 had died, the regulators introduced new rules,” Dr. Craig explained. “And those rules state that the word ‘safe’ could not be used without caveats.”

“The MHRA are responsible for implementing those rules, and they have utterly failed to do so,” she said. But worse still, the MHRA themselves have used the term in describing covid “vaccines.”

“And that was a lie,” Dr. Craig said.

The MHRA also failed to introduce an absolute safety threshold. This is the minimum level of safety that is considered acceptable or tolerable.  It is the point at which a drug must be either suspended or withdrawn.

“They’ve also ignored all the evidence of harm on the basis of their belief that the benefits always outweigh the risks,” Dr. Craig said.  “That was not always true, that was a lie,” she said.

And doctors who warned what the safety issues would be, “were threatened and shut down,” she said.

Pfizer Covered Up Harm in its Trial Data

She spoke about the cover-up of harms noted in Pfizer’s COVID “vaccine” trial.  One participant developed pericarditis post-vaccination.  “That illness was put down into the data as being pneumonia, covid pneumonia, that was ‘test negative’,” Dr. Craig said.

“What that meant was it was not included in the safety data and because the test was negative it didn’t have to be included in the efficacy calculations either.  So, it was effectively disappeared,” she said.

Twelve-year-old Maddie de Garay developed immune-mediated nerve damage throughout her body.  However, her condition was described in Pfizer’s trial data as being functional abdominal pain. “So that was another lie,” Dr. Craig said.

“The accumulation of all these lies created the overall lie about the safety of these products,” she said.

The indications of harm continued.  After the mass covid injection campaign began there were early indicators that these injections were harmful. “The surveillance systems which were designed to detect a problem sounded many alarms,” she said.

Illness and Death Were Treated Differently Before and After Vaccination

Before the rollout of the COVID injections, if someone tested positive for covid then every symptom after that was considered a covid symptom.  However, post-vaccination, the only symptoms that were considered to be related to the injection were a sore arm, a fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms.

“Any hospitalization after a COVID-positive test was a COVID hospitalization.  But somebody who was hospitalized after the vaccine was almost always considered a coincidence,” she said.

“Anybody who died within 28 days of a covid positive test, was considered to be a covid death. Even when there were other conditions that contributed to that death.  Whereas, anybody who died after a vaccine, if there was any other possible causation, that was put down on the death certificate,” she said.

“Neither approach is scientific or rational,” she added.

Adding to the spurious classification of COVID-19 and vaccine injuries, some doctors have actively been gaslighting people who have been vaccine-injured.

Some vaccinated people who developed cardiac or neurological symptoms of unknown cause “had their problems described as being due to anxiety by their doctors,” Dr. Craig said.

To add to the lies, “there are also doctors who have told patients that they’ve been vaccine injured but have refused to write it into their medical record,” she said.

Covid Injections Cause Systemic Harm

The surveillance systems for measuring harm from a drug are designed to detect rare events in a single organ of the body.  “But these products have caused harm across the body,” Dr. Craig said. “The surveillance systems are not designed to pick up [ ] systemic effects.”

There are several reasons why COVID injections cause harm all over the body.

Firstly, there are autoimmune diseases. The platforms are designed so that cells throughout the body express a foreign protein. After vaccination, the mRNA or DNA from COVID injections enter cells. Once inside, they use the cells’ machinery to produce what is called the spike protein. The cells producing this foreign protein – the spike protein – on their surface are sacrificed as the immune system attacks them. “When you get that kind of organ damage, it looks like an autoimmune disease,” Dr. Craig said.

Additionally, the spike protein looks very similar to a human protein. “There’s about an 80% crossover,” Dr. Craig said. “That means there is also a risk of conventional autoimmune disease.”

Secondly, there is the vascular damage caused by the COVID injections.  We have blood vessels throughout our bodies so the vascular damage can cause harm in all sorts of ways, she said.

Thirdly, there is evidence of endotoxin contamination from the bacteria in the manufacturing process.  Endotoxin can also cause harm throughout the body.

Fourthly, synthetic RNA, synthetic DNA contamination and mitochondrial damage can affect any cell in the body.  There are also unknown proteins being produced which could lead to conditions such as amyloids, which again can affect numerous organs.

Other Indicators of Vaccine Harms

Alarm bells were ringing in data other than safety surveillance systems as well.

Until the rollout of the COVID vaccines, ambulance callouts for life-threatening emergencies had been steady and predictable at around 2,000 per day. Since the mass COVID injection campaigns began, there have been 2,500 per day, Dr. Craig said.

The skyrocketing numbers of people who can’t work because they have long-term illnesses also tell a story.  The results of surveys show that the number of people who have long-term sickness has been around 2 million since 2012.  “But since the vaccine rollout, this rocketed in spring 2021 and it’s now at 2.8 million,” she said.  The USA data looks similar, she added.

Also in spring 2021, there was a rise in non-covid deaths. “This happened across the vaccinated world,” Dr. Craig said.  “The claim that it was covid that was causing all this excess was a lie,” she testified.

So, what were people dying from?

“Non-covid cardiovascular deaths rose with the vaccine rollout and have been high ever since.  And deaths in the young have been high ever since, particularly in the 50 to 64-year-old age bracket,” she said.  “This is true in almost all [highly] vaccinated countries.”

In the UK, the excess deaths have been lower in London, in the black population, and in lower socio-economic groups.  “These were all groups that were vaccinated less,” Dr. Craig said. “And if you look regionally across the world, less vaccinated areas have had fewer excess deaths since 2022.”

ONS Cover-up and Lies

The UK Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) has claimed the unvaccinated have a higher covid mortality rate.  Unvaccinated people also have a higher mortality rate for non-covid deaths which reveals a bias is incorporated into ONS data.  The bias is because of a demographic difference between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations. “In all likelihood, the unvaccinated had a higher pre-covid mortality rate,” she said.

“When you take out that bias, the difference [between mortality rates] disappears,” she said. “So, to claim that the difference would be due to a vaccine, would be a lie.”

“In fact, that gap in mortality between the vaccinated and unvaccinated has not stayed steady.  Over time the mortality in the vaccinated has increased and the gap has shrunk. When that happened, the ONS stopped publishing the data,” she added.

“It’s clear these products were far from safe,” she said.

The document explains how governments used an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people basic human rights and freedoms and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.

The authors of the Legal Brief maintain that had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of International Human Rights Law and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.

There is also deep concern that this was just a trial run and that the imminent promulgation of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) “Pandemic Treaty” and amended International Health Regulations will take these tyrannical measures to an entirely different level.

The World Council for Health (“WCH”) has published a ‘Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies’ in response to these concerns.

This document explains how governments used the declaration of an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people their basic human rights and freedoms and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.

The critical question that should have been addressed at the time was whether the threat posed by COVID-19 represented a public health emergency that threatened the life of the nation. The Legal Brief presents four criteria to be used to determine if a state of emergency should be declared. These criteria state that the threat should:

• be actual or imminent;
• involve the whole nation;
• place the continuation of the organized life of society at risk of extinction; and,
• be so extraordinary that ordinary measures for protecting public health and order are clearly inadequate.

The arguments presented in this document show that the COVID-19 event never met any of these criteria. Thus, as it did not meet the legal conditions of an emergency ‘threatening the life of a nation’, all derogation measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, school and small business closures, travel restrictions, and harmful vaccine mandates, were illegal breaches of International Human Rights Law (“IHRL”).

All States have a legal obligation to enact public policy that protects, respects, and ensures fundamental human rights. Furthermore, certain norms and fundamental human rights exist that can never be violated, not even during a declared state of emergency. Instead, during the COVID era, governments around the world chose to follow the recommendations of WHO, ignore the rights of citizens, and enact oppressive public health actions. It is also of huge concern that human rights organizations failed to hold governments to account for their abuse of emergency measures.

The authors of the Legal Brief maintain that had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of IHRL and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, these gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.

To prevent future public health emergencies resulting in similar human rights abuses, the Legal Brief therefore recommends the following actions:

• to educate the public regarding the criteria to declare a legitimate state of emergency;
• to establish panels to monitor adherence to IHRL and communicate violations; and,
• to establish activist groups to take necessary proactive legal action.

You can listen to Dr. Tess Lawrie explain this in the 5-minute video embedded in her Substack article.  You can read the Legal Brief HERE.

(Daily Exposé)—A study conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration has shown that the risk of myocarditis following mRNA COVID vaccination is around 133x greater than the background risk in the population.

This means COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of suffering myocarditis, an autoimmune disease causing inflammation of the heart, by 13,200%.

The study, conducted by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as well as from several U.S. universities and hospitals, examined the effects of vaccination with products manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.

The study’s authors used data obtained from the CDC’s VAERS reporting system which were cross-checked to ensure they complied with CDC’s definition of myocarditis; they also noted that given the passive nature of the VAERS system, the number of reported incidents is likely to be an underestimate of the extent of the phenomenon.

1626 cases of myocarditis were studied, and the results showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech product was most associated with higher risk, with 105.9 cases per million doses after the second vaccine shot in the 16 to 17 age group for males, and 70.7 cases per million doses after the second shot in the 12 to 15 age group for males. The 18 to 24 male age group also saw significantly higher rates of myocarditis for both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products (52.4 and 56.3 cases per million respectively).

The study found that the median time to symptom onset was two days, and that 82 percent of cases were in males, consistent with previous studies. Around 96 percent of affected people were hospitalized, with most treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; 87 percent of those hospitalized had resolution of symptoms by the time of discharge.

At the time of data review, two reports of death in people younger than 30 years of age with potential myocarditis still remained under investigation and were not included in the case counts.

Among the reported symptoms were: chest pain, pressure, or discomfort (89%), shortness of breath (30%), abnormal ECG results (72%), and abnormal cardiac MRI findings (72%).

The study’s authors noted that myocarditis following vaccination appeared to resolve more swiftly than in typical viral cases; however, given that vaccination is no longer considered a reliable way in which to avoid COVID infection, it is unclear whether this has any specific relevance to the cost-benefit analysis of COVID vaccination, especially considering the low risk of complications following coronavirus infection for the age group most at risk for heart-related complications following vaccination.

Given the plethora of studies confirming a link between vaccination and myocarditis, the CDC has commenced active surveillance of adolescents and young adults to monitor their progress following heart-related incidents after vaccination. Long-term outcome data, however, are not yet available.

In the meantime, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advise that people with myocarditis should refrain from competitive sports for three to six months, and only resume strenuous exercise after normal ECG and other test results are obtained. In addition, they advise that further mRNA vaccine doses should be deferred.

In conclusion, the study’s authors note that the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men and that this risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

Sound off about this story on our End Medical Tyranny Substack.

Great Resetters Klaus Schwab and King Charles III seized on the fear propagated by the “COVID pandemic” to implement their long-planned agenda.  And the vehicle to achieve their “build back better,” a new social and economic order, is “climate change.”

How Climate Change Policies Are Fuelling the Great Reset Agenda

By Tim Hinchliffe

When World Economic Forum (“WEF”) founder Klaus Schwab and Britain’s King Charles declared that it was time for a great reset three months into the COVID-19 pandemic, it had little to do with fighting a coronavirus.

Instead, they called the pandemic a “narrow window” and a “shrinking, golden opportunity” to seize the moment when people were most afraid and vulnerable to thrust upon them their long-planned agenda of a golden age out of the destruction of the old  – to build back better – as they say.

And although the coronavirus was the catalyst to set the great reset agenda in motion, the vehicle by which they would achieve their social and economic order out of chaos was climate change.

“Some leaders and decision-makers who were already at the forefront of the fight against climate change may want to take advantage of the shock inflicted by the pandemic to implement long-lasting and wider environmental changes. They will, in effect, make ‘good use’ of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste” – COVID-19: The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret, 2020

Like COVID and the war on terror, the enemy remains elusive, requires heavy taxpayer funding, and leads to total surveillance and control over society with the gradual erosion of individual freedom.

Overlapping climate change policies such as limited mobility, energy control, dietary restrictions, and personalized lockdowns are fuelling the great reset of society and the global economy.

All roads lead to a system of social credit powered by digital ID and Central Bank Digital Currencies (“CBDCs”).

With climate change as the go-to bogeyman, here’s how some of these climate policies could play out in futuristic scenarios.

Limited mobility: reducing private car ownership and air travel while introducing battery passports for electric vehicles and Ultra Low Emission Zones to keep people in their place

Fossil fuels are to be reduced or completely eliminated, according to the WEF.

Unelected globalists also envision a future where private car ownership is either completely abolished or limited to a fraction of its current capacity.

The desire to transition to only electric vehicles, whose charging stations are mostly powered by fossil fuels, will lead to limited mobility as many people will not be able to afford them, along with other variables that affect performance like differences in temperature.

Apart from the massive amount of unethical mining practices for natural resources that go into producing batteries for electric vehicles, the batteries themselves are planned to be fitted with “battery passports.”

These battery passports serve as a form of digital ID that will track and trace where the vehicle has been – where you and I have been – and how the battery is performing.

As electric vehicles become more self-driving, any infraction a driver may incur, such as driving where they’re not allowed, the vehicle could either shut itself off or drive itself to the nearest impound station.

Until then, Ultra Low Emission Zones (“ULEZs”) will slowly be installed, replete with surveillance cameras, as the invisible walls of a digital prison are to be erected for the coming 15-minute cities.

“If, in the post-pandemic era, we decide to resume our lives just as before (by driving the same cars, by flying to the same destinations, by eating the same things, by heating our house the same way, and so on), the COVID-19 crisis will have gone to waste as far as climate policies are concerned” – COVID-19: The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret, 2020

Air travel, too, is desired to be severely limited, and your digital identity will be a key component of enforcement and compliance.

Even if there isn’t an outright ban on air travel, the carbon tax will be so great that only the ultra-wealthy and influential will be able to fly.

While efforts are being made to produce “sustainable aviation fuel,” the pledges to reduce emissions that would cut back on air travel are already being made before the infrastructure has even been put in place.

But not to worry!

In the eyes of unelected globalists, our thirst for travel will be quenched by the coming of the metaverse and 15-minute cities.

Personalized lockdowns: by choice, compliance, or coercion powered by digital ID, CBDC, 15-minute cities, and the metaverse

Fifteen-minute smart cities, the metaverse, smart homes, digital ID, and CBDC all converge into a form of personalised lockdown where we will either have no desire to travel, or we will be coerced or forced into compliance through digital means.

Since the global elite place some of the blame on you and me for our contribution to the weather via our carbon footprints, the idea is to keep us docile in our tiny living spaces in massive high-rises as we immerse ourselves in the metaverse for work and play, pausing only to go downstairs to the gym, or perhaps opening our portholes to pick up the drone-delivered goods that we never truly own, but only rent.

“Commuting less, working remotely a bit more, bicycling and walking instead of driving to keep the air of our cities as clean as it was during the lockdowns, vacationing nearer to home: all these, if aggregated at scale, could lead to a sustained reduction in carbon emissions” – COVID-19: The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret, 2020

There will be no cash machines in these 15-minute cities. Payments are to be made with a swipe of a hand or an iris scan, and all transactions will be done in CBDC, which cannot function without a digital ID.

Whether you are employed or artificial intelligence (“AI”) has made you part of the “useless class,” your paycheck or Universal Basic Income (“UBI”) will arrive in the form of a programmable CBDC that will be sent to your digital wallet, and there will limitations on where you can spend it, what you can spend it on, and when, including in the metaverse, where your digital ID will be the driver for a reputation-based social credit system.

But the metaverse is not just a virtual reality space where business, pleasure, and imaginary travel can be conducted from the comfort of your couch.

There is also an augmented reality aspect to this “ecosystem” where augmented reality (“AR”) glasses will have cameras and microphones turned on at all times, recording everything you see and hear, including everything in your home.

In order to access the metaverse, a digital ID will be required, and it will store all the data collected from your AR glasses and smart devices in your home and on your person, including Fitbits, thermostats, fridges, mirrors, and just about any other Internet of Things (“IoT”) device in your smart home, which can all be accessed and controlled remotely.

“The abundance of fake news and its ability to magnify and manipulate polarisation hinders our ability to deal successfully with the momentous collective action problems that humanity faces” – The Great Narrative, Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret, 2022

And in a future where public and/or private entities crack down, anything you say will be recorded and can be used against you, using the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”) social credit system as the blueprint.

These crackdowns will take the form of limited purchasing power, limited mobility, and limited luxuries programmed onto your digital ID and CBDC to ensure that you stay in your personalized, invisible lockdown.

But if your thoughts and words don’t get you into trouble, your consumption habits will – all in the name of saving the planet from your contribution to climate change.

Dietary restrictions: reducing meat and dairy consumption, propping up lab-grown proteins and insect consumption, and …

In order to save the planet from flatulent cows and fertilizer-favouring farmers, climate change alarmists are attempting to achieve net zero carbon emissions by limiting our diets.

Meat and dairy, like travel, is to be limited and phased out, such as the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows, to make way for alternative proteins based on plant and insects, along with artificial meat.

“The difference between ‘good governments’ and ‘bad governments’ will be measured by how fast they implement the transition to net zero while providing concomitantly a welfare policy that makes societies fairer and more prosperous” – The Great Narrative, Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret, 2022

Where “meat is difficult to track consistently along the supply chain,” alternative proteins that are produced in factories, farms, and a laboratory can all be fitted with sensors hooked up to the IoT for ultimate traceability stemming from centralized systems of control and surveillance.

While real meat may still be available in limited amounts, it will be considered a luxury, and its purchase by individuals will be monitored and controlled via individual carbon footprint trackers programmed into your digital ID.

Your CBDC will be programmed to either cut you off completely from going above your allowed limit of meat, or it will automatically deduct a hefty carbon tax.

Lab-grown proteins will replace farmers as their land use is deemed unsustainable due to their carbon emissions.

Farmers will either have to forcibly vacate, pay an extortionary carbon tax, or sell off their land for pennies on the dollar.

Ordo ab chao clima

The above scenarios, whether they come to any fruition in whole or in part, can be seen as either utopian or dystopian, depending on the person.

Some people would have no problem with staying in their pods and eating bugs while virtually traveling to imaginary lands in the metaverse as they sit back and collect their UBI in CBDC.

Others would not go so gently into that dark night.

But while climate change has been the go-to bogeyman for implementing policies leading to mass surveillance and complete control over society, this particular “crisis” is sometimes temporarily swapped out with other perceived crises as they arise.

Whether it’s the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflict, the war on terror, rogue intelligence agencies meddling in foreign and domestic affairs, famine, or a potential cyber pandemic, the proposed solutions parallel those for climate change.

In the end, they all call for the merging of corporation and state – public-private partnerships – to centralize power with the help of non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) and unelected globalists with their digital armies and propagandists in the media.

None of the dystopian scenarios mentioned need to come to pass.

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutemv – I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.

Note to censors, “fact checkers,” and advertising platforms: This op-ed has nothing to do with any “scientific consensus” about climate; it is a perspective on the potential outcomes of policies and solutions that have already been publicly proposed.

About the Author

Tim Hinchliffe is editor of The Sociable, a technology news blog that picks apart how technology transforms society and vice versa.  Hinchcliffe is also an author of articles that cover technology and society, with perspectives on public and private policies proposed by governments, unelected globalists, think tanks, big tech companies, defense departments, and intelligence agencies. Previously, Tim was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America.

Article cross-posted from SHTF Plan, sourced to The Daily Expose.

Today, things are very different.

And the Globalists, the conspirators, aren’t just ignoring the evidence, they are suppressing it.  And that is very different.

The truth about climate change is suppressed.  The truth about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccine is suppressed.  The truth about masks and lockdowns is suppressed.  The truth about prescription drugs is suppressed.  The truth about illnesses and death rates is suppressed.  Even the truth about traffic in cities and pollution is suppressed.

The above is how Dr. Vernon Coleman began his latest video.

Dr. Coleman’s entire channel on YouTube was removed – together with all his fact-packed videos and accurate predictions.  He then uploaded his videos to BrandNewTube, which was told to close Dr. Coleman’s channel or suffer the consequences.

Dr. Coleman explained what happened next: “Bravely, BrandNewTube ignored the threat. And the whole platform was hacked into bits. (It has just been reinvented as onevsp.com) The conspirators are doing everything possible to stop Dr. Coleman from sharing his messages.

Please join his channel on Bitchute.com so that you hear first about new videos. And if either or both websites go down we can still communicate. These are truly scary times and the harassment, suppression and plain old-fashioned banning is getting worse by the day.”

Article cross-posted from Daily Expose.

Article cross-posted from Rhoda Wilson at The Daily Exposé

“Reading through the comments, observations, and associated documents I was stunned by the frank, ‘Realpolitik’-based arguments in favor of a US Federal Government global population control/depopulation agenda, as well as the similarities to various activities known to have been performed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, World Health Organisation, United Nations and other non-governmental (and governmental) organizations,” he wrote.

Dr. Malone acknowledges that that correlation does not prove causation and “we do not (yet?) have documentation that these official population control/depopulation policy items influenced COVIDcrisis public health policy.”  However, he said, “As far as I am concerned, one must recognize and acknowledge the amazing parallels between preceding population policy and many of the ‘public health’ policies and actions which were implemented in the USA and most Western countries (particularly the ‘five eyes’ nations).”

Recently, a respected colleague, Gavin DeBecker, sent me an email comprising a lengthy analysis and attached documents concerning (formerly classified) National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 titled the ‘Kissinger Report‘. He also provided links to associated supplemental federal government documents including the National Security Directive Memorandum 314 ‘Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, 11/26/75‘. Gavin is a well-published author, including the pivotal work titled ‘The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence’, and he had prepared this analysis (below) while preparing a new book. His text, thoughts, and analysis are shared with the permission of the author.

In considering these documents, it is helpful to keep in mind that Henry Kissinger is a key mentor of Klaus Schwab, was involved (together with the CIA) in originally creating and continues to consult with the World Economic Forum as well as with the CCP/Xi Jinping.

[The short video below is not included in Dr. Malone’s article.  We’ve included it as a brief introduction.  The video features Dr. David Ayoub and Dr. Stan Monteith at the Radio Liberty Conference 2005.  You can watch Dr. Ayoub’s full presentation on Bitchute HERE or Rumble HERE.  Dr. Monteith is no longer with us and his website Radio Liberty no longer exists.  You can find some of his videos HERE.]

It all started with a meeting held in June 1973:

Referring to a memorandum written by General Taylor, General Draper, and his colleagues presented their views that the population explosion in developing countries was not only a threat to US interests in the economics and the development of those countries but also, more fundamentally, presented a danger to the United States politico military interests.

General Taylor and General Draper asked Ambassador Porter for his advice on how to proceed with the subject. They said they had talked to General Scowcroft in Mr. Kissinger’s office about it in terms of the possibility of a National Security Council (“NSC”) study. General Draper said he had written the President explaining his views that rapid population growth could endanger the concept of a generation of peace and recommending that the President speak out on this subject.

Ambassador Porter said that they were talking to someone who was already converted to this whole idea. He felt that the US population programs were not closely enough connected to the US’s overall aid programs but were handled too separately. He believed there was no use pumping in aid funds and food without a closer correlation with population programs.

Ambassador Porter said he thought that the Soviet Union would not be much interested in internal population programs because, although they were interested in birth control for China, they wanted to fill their own empty space in Siberia. He agreed, however, with General Draper’s argument that the Soviets should be interested, as the US is, in encouraging developing countries to reduce their rates of population growth. Ambassador Porter said he would make a formal proposal to Kissinger to put the matter on the agenda for the President-Brezhnev talks.

Ambassador Porter and Mr. Claxton both observed that it is important to be able to show abroad that we are not asking people of other countries to do more than we are doing at home.

General Draper then brought up his concern that the amendments to the AID bill proposed by 22 members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be harmful because … as he understood it, the earmarking for population funds which had been essential to the success of the program was being dropped. He said he would testify before the Foreign Affairs Committee the following week and would urge the Committee to leave $125 million earmarked for population programs alone and to transfer the health subject with $25 million to the food and nutrition section.

Kissinger Report and Subsequent US Population Control Policy:

The classified National Security Study Memorandum (“NSSM”) known as ‘The Kissinger Report’, undertaken at the direction of President Nixon, laid out detailed plans for population reduction in many countries.  These plans became official US policy in 1975.

Note: USAID figures most prominently in the report and was a co-author, along with the CIA and Department of State.

The memorandum and subsequent policies developed from the report were observed as a way the United States could use human population reduction to limit the political power of undeveloped nations, ensure the easy extraction of foreign natural resources, prevent young anti-establishment individuals from being born, and to protect American businesses abroad from interference from nations seeking to support their growing populations.

National Security Study Memorandum 200, Wikipedia 

The summary of The Kissinger Report stated that:

1. actions to accommodate continued population growth up to 6 billion by the mid-21st century without massive starvation or total frustration of developmental hopes; and
2. actions to keep the ultimate level as close as possible to 8 billion rather than permitting it to reach 10 billion, 13 billion, or more.

This major objective – to not exceed 8 billion – combined with the fact that we hit the 8 billion mark in 2022 might help explain the intense urgency of so many planned and organized actions during the past three years.

Perhaps the most obvious result of covid lockdowns and the interruption of commerce is the current record number of people at risk of starvation.  Before the covid era, the number of people at risk of starvation was 135 million.  By the end of 2021, that had increased by another 135 million people, and in 2022, it then increased by another 67 million.  The result is currently about 10 million deaths from starvation, 3 million of them children.

Further reading: World Hunger Facts, Action Against Hunger

The Kissinger Report created a template and spending plan that includes:

• Fertility and contraceptive research.
• Biomedical research would be doubled.
• Field testing of existing technology.
• Development of new technology.
• Oral contraceptives (optimal steroid hormone combinations and doses for populations).
• Intra-uterine devices of differing size, shape, and bioactivity should be developed and tested to determine the optimum levels of acceptability
• Sterilization of men and women has received widespread acceptance in several areas. Female sterilization has been improved by technical advances with laparoscopes, culdoscopes, and greatly simplified abdominal surgical techniques … the use of tubal clips, trans-cervical approaches, and simpler techniques can be developed. For men, several current techniques hold promise but require more refinement.
• Leuteolytic and anto-progesterone approaches to fertility control including the use of prostaglandins.
• Injectable contraceptives for women … administered by pare-professionals.  Currently limited by their side effects and potential hazards… can be overcome with additional research.
• Male contraceptive, in particular an injection which will be effective for specified periods.
• Injection which will assure a woman of regular periods.  The drug would be given by pare-professionals once a month or as needed to regularise the menstrual cycle.

The report recommends population control only in the least Developed Countries (“LDC”) and cautions that “We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs,” though the policy was precisely that.

The report stresses more than once that weaving the concepts of family planning into health programs is a strategy for gaining acceptance and will: “help the US contend with the ideological charge that the US is more interested in curbing the numbers of LDC people than it is in their future and well-being.  We should recognize that those who argue along ideological lines have made a great deal of the fact that the US contribution to development programs and health programs has steadily shrunk, whereas funding for population programs has steadily increased.”

The Report also mentioned mandatory programs of population control: “A growing number of experts are of the belief that the outlook is much harsher and far less tractable than commonly perceived… the conclusion of this view is that mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now.”

And asked: “Is the US prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth? … Are mandatory population control measures appropriate for the US and/or for others?”

The Report proposes a commercial approach in which the US government uses “big-medical research to improve the existing means of fertility control and to develop new ones.” It favors “large-scale programs that will induce fertility decline in a cost-effective manner,” and enthusiastically describes controversial examples, such as what it calls “the remarkably successful experiments in India in which financial incentives, along with other motivational devices, were used to get large numbers of men to accept vasectomies.”

The Report stated that primary emphasis on “population moderation” should be applied to “the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special US political and strategic interest.”  In 1974, the named countries were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Columbia.

Note: 33 years later, in 2021, the US donated millions of mRNA vaccines to the following countries, all of which were specifically named in The Kissinger Report: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Ethiopia, and Columbia.

The policies expanded even further in 1976 after the NSC advocated for the use of withholding food as a strategy of influence (food power), and using military force to prevent population growth.

United Nations Fund for Population Activities (“UNFPA”)

The Kissinger Report stated it is “desirable in terms of US interests” to work with the UNFPA which already had projects in more than 70 countries.

Pressure to develop a global strategy of population reduction was advanced to the Nixon Administration by Major General William Draper, who had been instrumental in establishing UNFPA and also co-founded the Population Crisis Committee.

UNFPA ran programs described by critics as forced abortions and coercive sterilizations. The UNFPA gave money from the US to support the People’s Republic of China’s birth control campaign, widely accused of major human rights violations, mainly on women and girls.  Likewise, UNFPA provided funding for the forced sterilization program promoted by the Indian government, exposed in 2014 when dozens of women died in “sterilization camps” to which they were lured in exchange for social benefits.

The program also received funds from other governments and various U.S. organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Further reading: The Kissinger Report and the World Population Control, The Wolf Report, 27 August 2017

Top 10 Methods Used to Reduce Human Population

Here are the top 10 methods “they” are using to reduce human population down to a “manageable” amount, at which point those remaining (apparently including the heirs to the fortunes of those driving this bus) will all live in a “utopian society”.

• Targeted sterilization
• Wars
• No cures for diseases
• Sexually transmitted diseases
• Environmental manipulation
• Abortions
• Genetically modified organisms
• Same-sex relationships
• The food supply
• Transhumanism

A report published in 2019 and re-emphasized in 2023 recommends that by 2030 we will not be permitted to eat meat or dairy products, we will be limited to three items of new clothing per year and one airplane flight every three years.  It will start in countries that “consume the most.” 

Published in 2019, ‘The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World’ report sets out targets for cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement ambitions.  What this report aims to do is quantify and then suggest ways for city “leaders” to reduce consumption-based emissions.  In other words, reduce what you and I consume be it food, clothes or travel, etc.

The place to start, a press release stated, is with those who consume the most, and “consumption-based emissions must be cut by at least 50% by 2030.”

The report outlines six sectors where the world’s cities can take “rapid action to address consumption-based emissions”: food, construction, clothing, vehicles, aviation, and electronics.

The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World was co-created and co-delivered by C40, Arup, and the University of Leeds with funding from Arup, University of Leeds, and Citi Foundation.   It claims to be an analysis and not a plan but the tone of the report, from the outset, reads like a plan.  The foreword stated:

“The report demonstrates that mayors have an even bigger role and opportunity to help avert climate emergency than previously thought … While the analysis addresses big global questions, its purpose is to inspire practical action … average consumption-based emissions in C40 cities must halve within the next 10 years. In our wealthiest and highest consuming cities that means a reduction of two thirds or more by 2030.” – Mark Watts, Executive Director of C40

“It is now clear that action to reduce consumption will be necessary as part of the global effort to mitigate climate change … The actions set out in the report are challenging and they will be confronting for many, but we think they are necessary … City Mayors can set a vision and convene actors to bring about the changes we describe … The work reported here forces a focus on what a sustainable urban future might look like and helps us to consider what policies, regulations, incentives and behavioural changes will be necessary to transition to a zero-carbon world.” – Gregory Hodkinson, Former Chairman of Arup

The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World, 2019

C40 is a global network of mayors representing one-quarter of the global economy.  It includes almost 100 cities plus 1,143 cities and local governments that have joined C40’s ‘Cities Race to Zero’.  The cities that sign up for the ‘Cities Race to Zero’ commit, among others, to keeping global heating below the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.

Without reading the numerous reports and recommendations thrown at the ‘Cities Race to Zero’ signatories, it’s not possible to establish if the actions set out in The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World report are specifically included in the action plan.  Why does it matter?  Because if they are, it is not only the 100 or so C40 Cities but more than 1,000 cities that are committing to the report’s reductions in consumer-based emissions. Additionally, we can assume Arup’s network is committing the same.

Arup works as a global network of “experts” and boasts that it “shapes cities in a thousand ways.” It has more than 17,000 members and offices in 46 of the 97 cities that make up C40’s global network. C40 and Arup have worked together since 2009 and have collaborated on dystopian publications such as Deadline 2020, Green and Thriving Neighbourhoods, and a guide for creating net-zero neighborhoods. But these collaborations have not come about without money changing hands.

The first C40/Arup report titled ‘Powering Climate Action: Cities as Global Changemakers’ was published in 2015.   That same year Arup committed to investing $1 million over three years into a research partnership with C40.

In 2019, the year the C40/Arup consumer-based emissions report The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World was published, Arup trebled its advisory support to C40 to $3 million over 3 three years.

In 2023, Arup continued its investment in C40 with up to US$300,000 a year to help C40 drive resilience and decarbonization in cities around the world. Unsurprisingly, in March 2023, C40 Cities re-highlighted the 2019 C40/Arup consumer-based emissions report in an article titled ‘A spotlight on consumption-based emissions’. “Since our report was published, cities around the world have begun to map consumption-based emissions and explore ways to reduce them,” C40 said.

So, what does the 2019 report that Arup has so heavily invested in say?

Below we have picked out a few highlights.  You can download and read the full report HERE.  Because it provides damning evidence against its collaborators, we have also attached a copy below should it disappear from public view at any time in the future.

Starting on page 66, the report summarises what they hope to impose on us.  Below are images of their “ambitions” which require no further comment, except to say that all these plans are being made and agreed upon outside the democratic process and in a classic dictatorial manner under false pretenses.

C40 and Arup’s activities need to be halted immediately and their operations shut down permanently.  Additionally, any person who has actively contributed to/participated in devising, considering, or implementing these plans should be questioned, investigated, and brought to account.

So, who are the people who feel they can autocratically override fundamental freedoms and remove inalienable rights while destroying our well-being, livelihoods, economies, and societies?  Some of their names are provided in an “acknowledgment” section at the beginning of the report:

The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World, 2019