Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Great Reset

The US government’s ‘psychopathic’ record on bioweapons should give us pause about ‘bird flu’ claims

Published

7 months ago

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

Farmers and citizens around the world must resist dangerous animal cullings and put governments on the defensive about the new ‘bird flu’ scare, given what we know about the abuse of bioweapons and gain-of-function research.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, medical science author Kris Newby told the story of how she learned that what is known as Lyme disease is likely the product of a bioweapon. She dropped fascinating discoveries that helped lead her to this conclusion: The admissions of a CIA “black ops guy” to dropping poison ticks on Cubans and of a bioweapons contractor to mass producing fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes “weaponized” with “deadly or incapacitating” diseases.

The importance of this interview goes far beyond the question of whether Lyme disease is a bioweapon, for which she provided hard-to-ignore evidence. By giving a disturbing glimpse into U.S. military involvement in disease bioweapons, it steers even the “conspiracy skeptic” to admit to the possibility, or likelihood, that governments, including our own, continue to test and deploy such bioweapons.

One who is unafraid of facing facts and reason will come to the same conclusion as Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya upon reviewing Newby’s research: That the “mid-20th century US biomedical research establishment was psychopathic,” as shown by its knowingly “deadly investigations in the name of developing vaccines and bioweapons.”

But human nature doesn’t change, and if the biomedical establishment had psychopathic tendencies less than a century ago, there will be people within it with those same tendencies today, as Bhattacharya concludes, pointing out that this “may help explain many things about the COVID pandemic.”

This question of government involvement in bioweapons production is taking on fresh and urgent relevance as the WHO redoubles its efforts to pass a freedom-restricting, national sovereignty-overriding Pandemic Treaty and as a bird flu scare is emerging.

Despite the fact that evidence overwhelmingly shows COVID-19 was a gain-of-function bioweapon used as an excuse to push harmful “vaccinations” around the world, the public is expected to unquestioningly swallow the idea that there is no agenda or deliberation behind a bird flu outbreak. Moreover, we are to believe bird flu is such a threat that it necessitates the mass culling of millions of chickens, severely restricting our food supply.

Already, there are plans to kill over four million chickens in Iowa after the avian influenza was reportedly detected among a flock in Sioux County. A leaked Zoom meeting involving Canada’s chief public health officer, Theresa Tam, shows a government team discussing measures it can take to curb or prevent potential outbreaks in Canada: searching farms for positive bird flu cases in animals and quarantining those farms; surveillance and tracking of infection cases; honing in on the production of raw milk; and even searching for infection in “farm cats,” which they acknowledged is a delicate endeavor, since they are cherished as pets.

“I don’t think this is a threat to mankind. I think this is a giant threat to the food supply because of this elective mass destruction of livestock,” said Dr. McCullough, who went on to suggest that the animals ride out the infections without being killed by the masses. He also called for an investigation into gain-of-function research, suggesting that this bird flu, like COVID-19, may be the result of such research.

Remarkably, the scientist Dr. Michael Gregor, a vegan who once once testified on behalf of Oprah Winfrey in her “meat defamation” trial, has repeatedly claimed that chicken farms will trigger an apocalyptic virus that will threaten half of humankind. In 2006, he published a book called Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, in which he warns that “leading public health authorities now predict as inevitable a pandemic of influenza, triggered by bird flu and expected to lead to millions of deaths around the globe.”

In his 2020 book “How to Survive a Pandemic,” he recommends that humans eventually not eat poultry at all, asserting, “As long as there is poultry, there will be pandemics. In the end, it may be us or them.”

In fact, one Amazon book reviewer believes his title is a misnomer and should be replaced with the following: “How Raising and Consuming Animal Flesh Causes Pandemics, and (By the Way) How to Survive One.”

In other words, in order to avoid total apocalypse, humanity must face economic devastation as well as likely malnutrition and health deficits from the inability to consume animal flesh. Globalists including the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Bill Gates already want the world to transition to synthetic beef “for the climate.” Are we to believe that eliminating animal flesh, a staple of human diets going back thousands of years, is genuinely good for the welfare of mankind?

Targeting chickens also conveniently aims a blow at those who are seeking to opt out of the globalist system by producing their own food, especially since the most accessible source of animal protein is chicken eggs and meat, available even to non-farmers.

The globalists, however – pardon the pun – prefer to kill two birds with one stone. A bird flu outbreak could accomplish another major destructive goal of the globalists: Dr. McCullough thinks that the “end game” of this bird flu is “mass vaccination.” He pointed out that the military contractor Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has already helped develop a bird flu vaccine which has been cleared by the FDA, and on Thursday, it was reported that the U.S. government is close to an “agreement to fund a late-stage trial of Moderna’s mRNA bird flu vaccine.”

Farmers and citizens around the world must resist mass animal cullings and put governments on the defensive, in light of what we know about the abuse of bioweapons and gain-of-function research. We have every right to question the origins and true danger of a new “pandemic,” considering what we’ve learned and witnessed during the COVID-19 outbreak. We cannot let globalists destroy lives in the name of saving them.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 21 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 21 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 21 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

MAiD

Nearly half of non-terminally ill Canadians who choose euthanasia say they are lonely

Published on December 19, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Of the 662 people who were not in danger of death but succumbed to medical assistance in dying last year, 47.1 percent cited as reasons for wanting to die ‘isolation or loneliness.’

Official government data shows that about half of Canadians who are not terminally ill yet wanted to end their lives via state-sanctioned assisted suicide did so last year because they said they were lonely.

According to data published by Health Canada on December 11 in its fifth annual report on medical assistance in dying (MAID), 15,342 people were approved for and died by euthanasia in 2023.

A total of 14,721 of these deaths were in cases where illness or disability were likely down the road or considered “reasonably foreseeable.” These are called Track 1 MAiD deaths.

However, 662 deaths were people who were not dying. Of these Track 2 deaths, 47.1 percent cited as reasons for wanting to die “isolation or loneliness.” By comparison, about 21.1 percent of Track 1 deaths reported the same feelings for wanting to die by doctor-led suicide.

The report stated that “social isolation and loneliness are shown to have a serious impact on physical and mental health, quality of life, and longevity.”

Of the Track 2 deaths, 35.7 percent lived alone, compared with 30.2 percent of Track 1 deaths. Of Track 1 deaths, the average age was 77.7 years. The average age of Track 2 deaths was 75.

Of note is that this year’s Health Canada report on MAiD is the first to include so-called “verbal” requests from individuals as official. Previously, those who wanted to die via assisted suicide had to submit a form to Health Canada in order to be officially recorded as a request to die by suicide.

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose Liberal government legalized MAiD in 2016, the deadly program has continued to relax its rules on who is eligible for death.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, 1 in 20 Canadian deaths in 2023 came from assisted suicide.

Last week, LifeSiteNews reported how a senior Canadian couple said that a hospice care center presented euthanasia to one of them as an option because they could not afford increased care costs on their fixed income.

Canadian pro-life leaders have criticized the Trudeau government’s continued push for expanding MAiD.

Indeed, most Canadians fear the nation’s euthanasia regime unfairly targets those who are financially and socially vulnerable while still supporting the immoral practice in general.

In 2021, the program expanded from killing only terminally ill patients to allowing the chronically ill to qualify. Since then, the government has sought to include those suffering solely from mental illness.

The number of Canadians killed by lethal injection under the nation’s MAiD program since 2016 stands at close to 65,000, with an estimated 16,000 deaths in 2023 alone. Many fear that because the official statistics are manipulated the number may be even higher.

Canada had approximately 15,280 euthanasia deaths in 2023.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UNESCO launches course aimed at ‘training’ social media influencers to ‘report hate speech’

Published on December 13, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

UNESCO’s bills its new ‘training’ initiative as empowering participants to be more credible and resilient while simply turning independent content creators into talking heads for the establishment.

UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism launch training courses, e-books, and surveys on disinformation and hate speech for influencers and content creators, big and small.

Last month, UNESCO published the results of a survey called “Behind the Screens: Insights from Digital Content Creators” that concluded that among 500 content creators in 45 countries that had a minimum of 1,000 followers, 62 percent said they did “not carry out rigorous and systematic fact-checking of information prior to sharing it,” while 73 percent expressed “the wish to be trained to do so.”

And lo and behold! UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas have launched a re-education course to brainwash independent creators into thinking like unelected globalists and the legacy media, whose credibility are at an all-time low:

The journalism industry is on high alert as news audiences continue to migrate away from legacy media to social media, and many young people place more trust in TikTokers than journalists working at storied news outlets

“Respondents to the survey expressed interest in taking UNESCO’s free online course designed to equip participants with media and information literacy skills and knowledge,” the report states.

To get an idea of the make-up of those 500 content creators that were surveyed in the UNESCO study:

  • 68 percent were nano-influencers – those with 1,000 to 10,000 followers
  • 25 percent were micro-influencers – those with 10,000 to 100,000 followers
  • 4 percent were macro-influencers – those with 100,000 to 1,000,000 followers
  • 6 percent were mega-influencers – those with over 1,000,000 followers

Only 12.2 percent of the 500 people surveyed produced content under the category of “current affairs/politics and economy” while the majority covered “fashion/lifestyle” (39.3 percent), “beauty” (34 percent), “travel and food” (30 percent), and “gaming” (29 percent).

Equip yourself to combat online misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and harmful AI content. Collaborate with fellow journalists and content creators to promote transparency and accountability on digital platforms, empowering your audience with the media and information literacy skills they need to navigate today’s information landscape.

In addition to the survey and the online course called “Digital Content Creators and Journalists: How to Be a Trusted Voice Online,” UNESCO and the Knight Center also published an e-book in October called “Content Creators and Journalists: Redefining News and Credibility in the Digital Age.”

This pyramid of propaganda is billed as empowering influencers to be more credible and resilient, but these efforts are also aimed at turning independent content creators into talking heads for the establishment.

 

Despite their expanding outreach, many digital content creators who work independently face significant challenges including the lack of institutional support, guidance, and recognition. — UNESCO, Behind the Screens: Insights from Digital Content Creators, November 2024

How can an independent content creator remain independent if he or she needs institutional support, guidance, and recognition?

This is an attempt by the United Nations to take independence away from the equation, so that its messaging becomes indistinguishable from mainstream, establishment narratives.

And between the survey and the e-book, there is not one, single, solitary example of disinformation or hate speech – save perhaps the claim that denying official climate change narratives is considered disinformation, but that’s highly debatable.

Threats to collective climate action are often perpetuated not only by individual creators but by industries, like fossil fuels, that actively shape public discourse to their advantage.

Speaking of climate change, the e-book contains a lengthy chapter called “Content Creators and Climate Change” that is entirely dedicated to pushing climate activism while claiming climate change disinformation is often perpetuated by coordinated campaigns from fossil fuel industries.

The UNESCO documents place heavy emphasis on disclosing who’s funding content creators while ignoring its partner, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP), and its alleged influence over UNESCO:

The Chinese Communist Party uses UNESCO to “rewrite history” and to “legitimize the party’s rule over regions with large ethnic minorities.”

When held to a mirror, UNESCO comes off as little more than hypocritical with massive conflicts of interests of its own:

One of the biggest ethical questions is knowing from where content creators derive their income.

 

At the same time, UNESCO points readers towards organizations like factcheck.org, which itself is funded by the likes of the U.S. State Department and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the latter of which holds approximately $2 billion of stock in COVID vaccine manufacturer J&J, according to U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie.

In January 2021, UNESCO, the WHO, UNDP, EU, and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas ran a similar type of propaganda campaign for so-called COVID vaccine disinformation training for journalists as they are now doing for so-called climate change disinformation for content creators.

Another goal of UNESCO and the Knight Center is to create an environment where content creators snitch on one another under the guise of “hate speech”:

Among those targeted by hate speech, most chose to ignore it (31.5%). Only one-fifth (20.4%) reported it to social media platforms. This indicates an area where UNESCO and its partners could provide valuable training for digital content creators on how to effectively address and report hate speech.

In other words, the U.N. is partnering with journalists to teach influencers how to become victims that need protection.

Hey! Content creators. Were you aware that any criticism against the propaganda that we’ve planted within you means that you were a victim of hate speech? No? Well, climb on board and let’s “effectively address and report hate speech!”

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X