coronavirus/bioweapon overview

Meet Dr. David Martin. Since around 1999 he has had a private company tracking bioweapon traffic worldwide, computerized I think via the net. This has given him a bird’s-eye view of the whole dynamic of this field real-time. One of his videos, when one goes to “bitchute david martin” at google, has some key details. He says Moderna, Pfizer, BioNTech made the deal with U. of Briish Columbia’s lipid nanoparticle program in Nov. 2019. He says maybe in same video that WIV uploaded the computerized chimeric coronavirus from Dr. Ralph Baric’s lab in Sept. 2019. Yes, these are vital links to the story all right. When I looked into the UBC production of the LNPs perhaps a half-year ago it was very clear online that half the UBC r&d team was Chinese; I conclude that Chinese PL had the breakthru LNP keys a bit before BioNTech, Pfizer and Moderna did link and ink their UBC deal. Klaus Schwab on video has said that half the Canadian government are from his Young World Leaders program. Back in 1994 at Cairo Summit of UN the nations agreed to do world population reduction measures; the steering committee was from NYC for that event; Todd Callender points that out in one of his videos. In 2009 at the Good Club held one time, that was at Rockefeller Institute/U. at NYC near UN hq, Bill Gates, Soros, Rockefeller and other billionaires also invited Anthony Fauci to their secret meeting in May. Bill Gates has lfor several decades engineered alot of this stuff worldwide. Kissinger from 2001 has been on Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon. Kissinger, Bloomberg, Gates and ex-Treasury Sec. Paulson travelled to Beijing in Nov. 2019. Kissinger would meet monthly with GWB during his admin, according to a White House biographer; GWB summoned big pharma and some others to him immediately after 9-11 and the Ft. Detrick lab’s anthrax letters. -r////////////////////////////////////////// In the early 1930s, Richard Shope isolated influenza virus from infected pigs. Shope's finding was quickly followed by the isolation of the influenza virus from humans, proving that a virus—not a bacterium, as was widely believed—caused influenza. In 1892, German bacteriologist Richard Pfeiffer isolated what he thought was the causative agent of influenza. The culprit, according to Pfeiffer, was a small rod-shaped bacterium that he isolated from the noses of flu-infected patients (1). He dubbed it Bacillus influenzae (or Pfeiffer's bacillus). Few doubted the validity of this discovery, in large part because bacteria had been shown to cause other human diseases, including anthrax, cholera and plague./ When history's deadliest influenza pandemic began in 1918, most scientists believed that Pfeiffer's bacillus caused influenza. With the lethality of this outbreak (which killed an estimated 20 to 100 million worldwide) came urgency—researchers around the world began to search for Pfeiffer's bacillus in patients, hoping to develop antisera and vaccines that would protect against infection. In many patients, but not all, the bacteria were found. Failures to isolate B. influenzae (now known as Haemophilus influenzae) were largely chalked up to inadequate technique, as the bacteria were notoriously difficult to culture (2)./ The first potential blow to Pfeiffer's theory came from Peter Olitsky and Frederick Gates at The Rockefeller Institute. Olitsky and Gates took nasal secretions from patients infected with the 1918 flu and passed them through Berkefeld filters, which exclude bacteria. The infectious agent—which caused lung disease in rabbits—passed through the filter, suggesting that it was not a bacterium (3, 4). Although the duo had perhaps isolated the influenza virus (which they nevertheless referred to as an atypical bacterium called Bacterium pneumosintes), other researchers could not reproduce their results. One of the doubters was Oswald Avery (Rockefeller Institute), who developed a culture media—chocolate agar—that optimized the growing conditions for B. influenzae and thus minimized false negative results from patient samples. Thus, the idea that flu was transmitted by a filterable agent (or virus) was dismissed./Pig farmers in Iowa had reported two outbreaks—one in 1918 and another in 1929—of a highly contagious, influenza-like disease among their animals. The disease bore such a remarkable resemblance to human flu that it was named swine influenza. Shope and his mentor Paul Lewis took mucus and lung samples from the infected pigs and attempted to isolate the disease-causing agent. They quickly isolated a bacterium that looked exactly like Pfeiffer's human bacterium (and was thus called B. influenzae suis), but when they injected the bacteria into pigs, it caused no disease (5)./Shope then filtered the samples and, like Olitsky and Gates, found that the filtrate contained the infectious agent. Shope's filtrate caused a highly contagious, influenza-like disease in pigs—albeit a more mild one than seen in naturally-infected pigs. Mixing the filtrate with the bacterium reproduced the severe disease. He concluded—correctly—that the filterable agent caused the infection, which then facilitated secondary infection with the bacterium (6). Shope published his results in a series of papers in The Journal of Experimental Medicine (5, 6). /Both Shope and the British trio later demonstrated that sera from humans that were infected with the 1918 flu virus could neutralize the pig virus, leading them to conclude that the swine virus was a surviving form of the 1918 human pandemic virus (8, 9). In fact, a related strain of flu still circulates among pigs today. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2118275///////////////////// However that above article may be, it is certain that the Rockefeller Institute placed their own military doctor (F. Gates) at Ft. Riley, Kansas early in 1918 just before the swine flu outbreak there and injected soldiers with an experimental meningitusfungus/bacterial vaccine concoted via horses at the Rockefeller Institute, and this stuff was found in many many autopsies in the lungs. Of course the US Army was massively injecting its soldiers with this stuff. -r.; see Recurring reports and documentation are emerging to tell us that this ‘Greatest Pandemic in History’ was not [1] “Spanish” [2], not “the flu” and, not a natural occurrence [3] but the result of human tinkering with vaccines. There surely is much more to emerge, but the accumulating evidence to date is too compelling to dismiss.////// In simple terms, the emerging evidence supports postulations that the 1918 pandemic was caused by a misguided – and very experimental – Rockefeller Institute meningitis vaccination program which was initiated at Fort Riley by the US military and spread to the world from there. This essay will attempt to briefly document the evidence that is available so far. There will, of course, be many objections to the content of this essay, not only from the ideologues and trolls but from those in high places with vital body organs requiring protection. First, there was never any justification for associating the 1918 pandemic with Spain. The pathogen did not originate in Spain, nor was Spain the hardest hit. The most commonly-accepted “official story” as related by our MSM is that all countries but Spain had initiated severe censorship (due to the war) and thus the facts of the pandemic freely circulated only in the Spanish media, and so it was “natural” to refer to this as the Spanish Flu. From this reasoning, since we all know the US has at least 125% freedom of speech and minus the same degree of censorship, we should rename COVID-19 “The American curse”. (This may yet happen, for other more valid reasons). https://news.fiar.me/2021/01/did-rockefeller-created-the-spanish-flu-pandemic-of-1918-ii///////////////// “Out of Cairo came no less than a revolution”, Barbara Crossette, former United Nations Bureau Chief of The New York Times, told the thirty-seventh session of the Commission on Population and Development this morning, as she delivered a keynote address on the theme “Has the Cairo Consensus Lost Momentum:  A Journalist’s View”.////////////////// Referring to the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, she said that revolution acknowledged that people –- women and men, mothers and fathers –- and not governments were the best judges of how many children to bring into the world, and where and when.  A broader theme that ran through the Conference was the realization that, in talking about curtailing population growth and the complex relationships between population and development, or population and the protection of the environment, women had to be a central factor. At “Cairo+10” [the 10-year anniversary of Cairo], she said, the same wide range of people and opinions heard in Cairo were beginning to be heard again.  Some inside the United Nations system feared that a lobby led by an unlikely combination of conservative Middle Eastern nations, the United States and the Holy See would mount a major drive to dilute or undo the language.  Others were more optimistic, as Cairo had been a seismic shift not easily reversed. New policies and laws were being put in place, in many places because of the influence of Cairo and women would know about them because of the Internet, she continued.  “Networking is now phenomenal among women widely separated by geography and culture”, she said.  That newfound sharing of ideas and experiences was a trend that could not be easily reversed. Women, she said, were not afraid to insist that they held the key to the solution, if the problem was too many people causing low health standards, poor education levels and a scarcity of natural resources.  With education and choice, women all over the world were proving that they could “talk fertility down”, as she quoted Joseph Chamie.  It was now clear, she said, that promoting the rights of women was essential for sustainable development.  Extremists on both sides of the discussion should end their debates.  With the right approach, the good sense of people everywhere can surprise experts, as shown by the willingness of many societies to take on the once-taboo subject of female genital mutilationhttps://press.un.org/en/2004/pop897.doc.htm