(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.

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

This article was originally published by Rhoda Wilson at The Daily Exposé.

Japan took over the G7 presidency in 2023 but the idea of a ‘Pandemic Treaty’ became a news item two years earlier.

In March 2021, then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson together with other world leaders announced that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response. “It would be rooted in the constitution of the World Health Organisation … Existing global health instruments, especially the International Health Regulations, would underpin such a treaty,” the announcement said.

The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.

It would also include recognition of a “One Health” approach that connects the health of humans, animals and our planet. No government can address the threat of pandemics alone – we must come together, UK Government, 30 March 2021

Further reading: Peter Daszak, Jeffrey Sachs and Anthony Fauci Have Been Spreading the Nefarious “One Health” Ideology

Within a couple of months, it was on the agenda at the 74th World Health Assembly (“WHA”) in May 2021: “Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies.”  During his WHA closing speech, Tedros the Terrorist said:

“[The WHA] approved a historic resolution on strengthening WHO preparedness and response for emergencies … the reports of the IPPR, the IHR [International Health Regulations] review committee, and the IOSC are unanimous in their view that the world needs a stronger WHO at the center of the global health architecture.

“The theme of this assembly, as you know, is ending this pandemic and preventing the next one … the challenges we face are profound and so must be the solutions we design. Strengthening WHO certainly means strengthening the secretariat but it also means strengthening the bond between member states … The one recommendation that I believe will do most to strengthen both WHO and global health security is the recommendation of a treaty on pandemic preparedness and response.

“We need … an overarching framework for connecting the political, financial, and technical mechanisms needed for strengthening global health security … The safety of the world’s people cannot rely solely on the goodwill of governments.  Every government is responsible for and accountable to its own people but member states can only truly keep their own people safe if they are accountable to each other at the global level.”

As part of its G7 Presidency, the UK hosted the G7 Summit in Carbis Bay, Cornwall on 11-13 June 2021.  It yielded many commitments to pandemic preparedness. The plan is to strengthen the role of WHO in pandemic preparedness and response in accordance with the resolution made at the 74th World Health Assembly in May.

The 2021 communiqué contained an endorsement of the G7 Carbis Bay Health Declaration, which goes into detail about the actions to “ensure all countries are better equipped to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from health crises”. First among these actions was strengthening the “One Health” approach to prevention and preparedness.

Read more: G7 leaders commit to greater pandemic preparedness (again), The Lancet, July 2021

The following year, during Germany’s G7 Presidency, a two-day G7 Health Minister’s meeting was held in Berlin from 19–20 May 2022.  The result was that the G7 health ministers agreed on a “pact to fight pandemics” which strengthened the role of WHO and preparedness for future pandemics.

It is a great achievement that as the G7 we have succeeded in agreeing on a pandemic pact. The WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence in Berlin will serve as a central hub so that data can be faster and better analysed and used.

… we need a strong WHO, global pandemic monitoring and mobile, well-trained intervention teams on the ground. How these structures can be put in place is one of the topics ministers will be discussing during their two-day meeting, together with representatives of WHO and the EU Commission. Closing of G7 Health Ministers’ Meeting: Far-reaching decisions adopted, German Federal Ministry of Health, 20 May 2022

The following month, Wellcome Trust published an article praising the German G7 Presidency for progress made in facing pandemic threats at the G7 Summit held in Germany from 26 to 28 June 2022.

“Behind the headlines on the summit, the G7 leaders’ communiqué does mark some notable – at times hard-won – progress, a credit to the German presidency bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders,” Wellcome’s European Government Relations Lead wrote.

The [G7 2022] communiqué’s endorsement of the Pact for Pandemic Readiness marks a significant step in the right direction for building global response and resilience to the threat of escalating infectious diseases. This Pact will be crucial for monitoring and rapidly responding to novel pathogens which could cause the next pandemic.

With technical meetings on the agenda in autumn to develop the roadmap to implementation.

The Pact for Pandemic Readiness is not the first G7 initiative for pandemic preparedness. The 100 Days Mission, launched under last year’s UK Presidency, aims to reduce the impact of future pandemics through the ambitious target to develop vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics within 100 days from pandemic detection.

This communiqué is a marker of good progress but there is still a long way to go highlighting the importance of continuing these discussions during the handover to Japan for the next G7 presidency in 2023.

G7 progress against pandemic threats is promising – now they must act, Wellcome, 1 July 2022

We are now in 2023 and Japan has the presidency of the G7.  The 2023 G7 Summit begins on Friday and the G7 is set to issue a statement on a global pandemic response.

Any guesses about what the statement from the upcoming G7 Summit might say?  Do you get the impression the text of the ‘Pandemic Treaty’ is not being shaped, developed, and negotiated over the next year as Mark Fletcher, Member of Parliament for Bolsover, assured his constituent but rather that it has, for all intents and purposes, already been written?  Do you get the feeling the Pandemic Treaty is, as far as they believe, a fait accompli?  If so, why are they waiting until 2024 to approve the text as Fletcher indicated? Because, perhaps, not all countries are on board.

Initially, the US had opposed the inclusion of language that would have made the so-called pandemic treaty legally binding.  However, in December 2021, the Biden Administration supported a draft resolution that was submitted to a special session of the WHA.  But there could be further disruptions to the G7’s plans.

China and Russia may prove difficult for G7 to get on board with their agenda, albeit for reasons other than the ‘Pandemic Treaty’.  The Financial Express suggested that the two countries are top problems for G7 leaders and highlighted some problems G7 leaders should focus on at their upcoming meeting:

• One of the biggest challenges for the G7 is to enlist nations outside the group, especially those in what is known as the Global South. These countries may attach themselves to the bigger power in their own neighbourhood, or to China.
• The penalties on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine are unprecedented in their breadth and depth. And yet, while diminished, the Russian economy continues to hold up. Conversely, there will be a unified show of support for Ukraine, which is gearing up for a counter-offensive.
• G7 leaders are grappling with the question of how to tackle China, the world’s second-largest economy.
• The Summit location of Hiroshima is a potent reminder that Japan was bombed twice with nuclear weapons by the US in the dying days of World War II. Now the architecture around the monitoring of nuclear arsenals is fraying.
• US President Joe Biden comes to the G-7 chased by a debt ceiling crisis at home.
• The leaders of France and Italy come to Hiroshima after a period of tussling between their governments.
• Turkey is facing a runoff election on 28 May with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan faring better in the first round than predicted.
• The meeting coincides with a gathering of the Arab League leadership, where Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad may turn up following his reinstatement more than a decade after his crackdown on opponents started during the Arab Spring uprisings. For all the years of criticism by the US and others for his brutality in Syria, the Syrian leader is very much back at the table.

With all of the above going on behind the scenes, we can but hope the ‘Pandemic Treaty’ gets caught in the crossfire. Even if the Pandemic Treaty were shelved, it is only one string to WHO’s bow to become a global health dictator.  The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations would also achieve their aims.   #ExitTheWHO

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) [6 January 2023] announced a formal collaboration with BioNTech SE to accelerate research into using its vaccine technology against cancer, and test personalised mRNA therapies on NHS patients, which some experts are calling “revolutionary.”

New ‘Revolutionary’ Cancer Vaccine Research Hub Announced, Medscape UK, 6 January 2023

A memorandum of understanding was signed by the Health Secretary, Steve Barclay, to explore personalized mRNA vaccines with the German company BioNTech which co-developed the leading covid-19 “vaccine” with Pfizer.

BioNTech said that the collaboration focused on “three strategic pillars”: cancer immunotherapies based on mRNA or other drug classes, infectious disease vaccines, and expansion of BioNTech’s footprint in the UK as “one of the company’s key markets”.

This unique collaboration promises to deliver 10,000 personalized therapies to NHS cancer patients by 2030 through the creation of a “cancer vaccine launch pad.” A new center will open in Cambridge to coordinate both the science and clinical strategy.

Using mRNA to encode useful proteins in vivo has been around in the lab for years, Medscape reported. But the covid vaccine program driven by BioNTech and Moderna has shown how quick to produce and how potent mRNA-based products can be.

The second key factor driving this newfound optimism in immuno-oncology is the partial success of the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and ipilimumab in a wide range of cancers.

Medscape noted a third driver of interest in mRNA cancer “vaccines” to be the speed at which DNA sequence data can be obtained from clinical samples. What used to take weeks can be achieved in seconds and large datasets are compared instantly by sophisticated software. So, the mutations in an individual tumor can be mapped and the relevant mRNA constructs made and inserted into a suitable vector within days. Medscape’s article continued:

This technology will create a new way of working for big pharma.  A whole new service culture will be needed – pathology services will need to curate and supply fresh tissue; hospital pharmacies will need to engage with new organisations to deliver bespoke vaccines and provide them to oncologists ready for injection. And there are many variables in terms of dose, timing, the use of checkpoint inhibitors to take the brakes off the immune response and, of course, the addition of more conventional radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

Will mRNA Cancer Vaccines Live Up to Their Promise? Medscape, 10 February 2023

BioNTech developed the known to be harmful covid injection which was then marketed by Pfizer.  One of the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech’s covid injections is cancer.  After ineffective and unsafe covid mRNA injections administered without informed consent, do you trust BioNTech and/or the system that promotes and supports its products to design and administer a “safe and effective” personalized mRNA injection for you?

What Will the Future Look Like?

Medscape’s article provided a prediction of what the future of cancer patients could look like.  Doctors should be aware that their role is likely to become redundant and, in the future, they will merely serve as vaccinators.

The cancer patient of 2040 will have minimally invasive robotic surgery to remove their primary cancer and a full staging process by sophisticated imaging. Radiotherapy using artificial intelligence to optimize the treatment plan will be given if there is a significant risk of local recurrence.

Molecular analysis of the removed cancer will determine the risk of systemic spread. If high, a program of chemo-immunotherapy will be triggered. The individual pattern of antigen expression on the tumor will be evaluated by robotic analysis and an AI-generated series of mRNA sequences encoding the relevant epitopes generated. These will be taken from the curated repository and delivered in a suitable form for injection by the oncologist.

The service providers will be different from today. There will be local collectors of tissue and central laboratories run by today’s big pharma. Robots will identify and insert the appropriate sequences into vectors ready for injection into individuals. Maybe they will already be synthesized and stored in vials rather like the jars in an old-fashioned chemist’s shop. Everything will be based on a recurrence risk assessment. The oncologist will be provided with a printout of the sequences for injection and a week afterward a blood sample will be taken to verify a successful immune response to the translated epitopes.

You can read Medscape’s full article ‘Will mRNA Cancer Vaccines Live Up to Their Promise?’ by Karol Sikora HERE. 

In November 2021 we published an article that noted Sikora was one of the experts who refused to acknowledge that covid injections could be contributing to excess deaths. Instead, Sikora blamed a “backlog” in reporting and a “lack of access to health care” as the cause of deaths.

Karol Sikora is a Professor of Medicine at The University of Buckingham and an adviser to the World Health Organisation.  He currently directs a cancer drug donation program in Africa. He is also a member of the Oncology Scientific Advisory Board at biopharmaceutical company Cyclacel Limited and serves as an oncology consultant for AstraZeneca.

Article cross-posted from The Daily Exposé.