In Feb. 2020, Jeremy Farrar & Fauci Excluded the CDC Director in a Call Exploring the Origins of COVID

Ms. Malliotakis: "Why do you think you were excluded from those calls?"

Dr. Robert Redfield: "Because it was told to me that they wanted a single narrative and that I obviously had a different point of view."

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1633489202124840960?s=20

Follow @VigilantFox 🦊
Rumble | Substack | Other Socials

Former CDC Director: "There's No Doubt That NIH Funded Gain-of-Function Research"

Ms. Malliotakis: "Is it likely that American tax dollars funded the gain-of-function research that created this virus?"

Dr. Redfield: "I think it did — not only from NIH but from the State Department, USAID, and from DOD."

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1633491748893728768?s=20

Follow @VigilantFox 🦊
Rumble | Substack | Other Socials

Dr. Robert Redfield, the former CDC Director, says Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins excluded him from meetings because they wanted to maintain control over the narrative surrounding the origin of SARS-CoV-2:

"As a virologist, this wasn't anything like SARS or MERS because they never learned how to transmit human to human. I felt this virus was too infectious for humans; there was a lot of evidence that the lab published in 2014 that they put the ACE2 receptor into humanized mice so it could infect human tissue. I didn't know I was excluded; I didn't know there was a February 1st conference call until the FOIA came out with the emails, and I was quite upset as the CDC director that I was excluded... they came up with a single narrative which I will argue is antithetical to science."

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1633496829735362561

@KanekoaTheGreat

If anybody missed this earlier on Telegram, now shareable on YouTube!

"The Final Solution to Global Warming (Parody)"
https://youtu.be/GWYzjG0f1Ag

Meanwhile they want to bring freedom of movement to an end. Anyone eligible to respond to this, presumably helps if you live in UK:

Pay per mile: Consultation ends this Friday 10th March. Please edit as you wish and forward to friends and contacts. London being used as prototype for rolling out elsewhere.

If we ‘pay per mile’ then our miles are tracked and recorded. Either that means a camera on every junction, or it means we are required to carry a smartphone or similar tracking device for every journey we take, such as existing anti-theft devices. This is ‘already here’ technology, not something for the future as this scheme’s advertising is suggesting.

And any one of these technological methods can, either now or before long, be adapted to cover all journeys, whether by car, cycle, foot or scooter - possibilities that are not ruled out in the documentation.

In the 2019 report “Green Light” on the future of London road charging by the Centre for London https://www.centreforlondon.org/reader/green-light/ we see described an app called “City Move” that people are expected to sign into before making their journey. This will suggest alternative modes of transport or alternative times. An expectation to use such an app is just a stone’s throw from a requirement to gain a permission code for one’s journey. Questions asked in the consultation imply a need to explain or justify one's journey.

Where bureaucracies can take power, they usually do - and it is an unwise nation that builds such capability into their infrastructure. This is why we need to get involved, and alert our friends to it despite the very short timeframe.

Here is the London Assembly website:

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assemblys-current-investigations/road-user-charging

Responses to the questions are made by a simple email. Here are some suggestions on how to respond - but do add personal, local or specific examples to your answers. Use statements and explanations, and avoid use of rhetorical questions.

Q1. Do the current road user charging systems in London require reform?

No. Existing charging systems are adequate. All of the stated aims of this new system can be better achieved by traditional methods. There is no need for digital or technological systems, but instead it would be better to put resources into improving existing systems, for example reassessing speed humps, improved traffic light phasing, road surface maintenance, and signage. Poor quality in all these areas impacts on road congestion, journey times, and pollution from all sources. For example in ...

Q2. How might smarter road user charging differ from the current daily charges for driving applied in London?

Smarter charging inevitably requires the use of more technological devices and there are many ethical reasons to reject any such scheme. For example the use of scarce resources especially lithium and cobalt, and which are mined by children under dangerous and exploitative conditions. This is part of the price paid by other people for the implementation of schemes of this nature ...

Q3. How might charges for driving in London be varied for different types of journeys, such as travelling for work, caring responsibilities or essential services?

Charges should not be varied for different types of journey as social costs of any such assessment far outweigh any perceived benefits. The concept introduces the need to justify one’s journey to the authorities, that is, to ask permission, something that should never happen. It also adds more complications and stress, more rules and regulations, more bureaucracy, and temptation to be dishonest about the purpose of one’s journey. For example when ...

Q4. What strategies and targets could smarter road user charging support?

There are no strategies and targets that smarter road user charging can support. Target-chasing always ends up incentivising perverse outcomes and does more harm than good. Target-monitoring is costly and effort should instead be put into quality of urban design. For example ...

Q5. What technology could be used to support smarter road user charging?

None. Human society already has too much technology in use, for example ...

Q6. How could smarter road user charging assist with tackling current challenges such as traffic, air pollution and climate change?

Smarter road user charging cannot assist with tackling current challenges such as traffic, air pollution and climate change. Instead better quality road design is needed, along with reduced charges and support for local shops so that people can fulfil their routine needs without the need to travel. For example tyre dust is a significant source of pollution, and would be greatly reduced by the removal of speed bumps and other obstructions in the roads, not by taxation and charges. Also ....

Q7. Are road user charging schemes best set up at a city or regional level, or as a national system, and what benefits or difficulties would you expect with either approach?

Road user charging should not be introduced anywhere.

Q8. If smarter road user charging is introduced, which charges or taxes should it replace and how should the current taxes and charges be changed?

Smarter road user charging should not be introduced because any advantages for each individual are outweighed by the disadvantages.

Q9. What discounts and exemptions would you like to see for any new smarter road charging scheme, for example to help disabled people, those on low incomes, those who need to drive for work, or people who live in areas with low levels of public transport?

No such discounts or exemptions should be introduced. The concept introduces the need to justify one’s journeys to the authorities, that is, to ask permission, something that should never happen. Instead the Blue Badge system already exists and can be widened in scope or reformed. The way to improve the lives of the groups mentioned here would be to reduce fuel charges by increased oil exploration and extraction.

Q10. If the Government were interested in a national distance-based road user charging scheme, would London be a sensible place for a trial?

No. No such trial is needed. In terms of petrol/diesel powered vehicles, fuel tax already acts as a distance-based road user charging scheme. A cheaper and more simple means to tax electric vehicles would be an increase in annual road tax on EVs.

Q11. If distance-based road user charging was introduced, do you think Londoners who drive should pay less in total for vehicle or driving-based charges, the same, or more than they do currently?

No such distance-based charging scheme should be introduced.

Q12. Mayors and local authorities currently have powers to introduce new road charging schemes. Do you think anything further is required beyond an electoral mandate for these bodies to use those powers (for example a local referendum)?

Mayors and local authorities’ powers to introduce these schemes should be removed immediately. We need a full and uncensored debate through all forms of public discourse. Dissenting voices should be fully attended to, and only after that specific referendums should be required to determine the will of the people.

Q13. How are other cities and countries working on similar smarter road user charging ideas faring, and what alternatives are they looking at for achieving similar policy goals?

None of these schemes can be assessed until the policy goals themselves are examined and challenged in open debate. [This is a rare opportunity to elaborate about these goals!]

🇬🇧 The UK recorded its coldest temperature in March since 2010 on Wednesday, despite widespread fears of global warming.

🌍 @European_Insider | 🕊 Retweet

The "Spanish Flu" Originated in the US

"The fact that the 1918 pandemic likely began in the
United States matters because it tells investigators where
to look for a new virus. They must look everywhere.

So if the contemporary observers were correct, if American troops carried the virus to Europe, where in the United States did it begin?

Both contemporary epidemiological studies and lay histories of the pandemic have identified the first known out-
break of epidemic influenza as occurring at Camp Funston, now Ft. Riley, in Kansas. But there was one place where a previously unknown – and remarkable – epidemic of influenza occurred.

Haskell County, Kansas, lay three hundred miles to the
west of Funston"

1479-5876-2-3.pdf

The Original Pandemic Lab Leak Debate

The H1N1 virus of the 1918 influenza pandemic abruptly disappeared from human populations in the 1950s, only to re-emerge in 1977, very likely a result of human error

Roger Pielke Jr.
Mar 18, 2021

"In 1977 public health officials detected a flu strain in China and Russia that mainly affected young people. The so-called Russian or Red flu spread rapidly and was ultimately responsible for about 700,000 deaths worldwide. Research into the flu provided strong hints that it may have not had a natural origin. If so, the 1977 outbreak would have been the world’s first pandemic caused by human error in research and public health.

The 1977 pandemic was caused by one of three subtypes of the influenza A virus with pandemic potential — called H1N1 (the others are H2N2 and H3N2). The H1N1 virus is also called the swine flu, because it also is found in pigs. Soon after the flu outbreaks in Russia and China were detected, researchers discovered that it was swine flu causing the illnesses, immediately raising questions.

The H1N1 swine flu virus was responsible for the 1918 influenza pandemic.. Following the pandemic, the virus and its descendants continued to circulate in the human population until it “abruptly disappeared from humans in 1957 and was replaced by a new reassortant virus that combined genes from the H1N1 strain and an avian virus.”

In 1978, research led by Peter Palese of the City University of New York demonstrated that the newly emergent H1N1 pandemic virus was “very closely related” to “two H1N1 viruses isolated in 1950.” Vincent Racaniello, today a professor at Columbia University, was a PhD student in Palese’s lab in 1978 and in 2009, he described the significance of the 1977 finding of the close similarity of the two viruses:

Why were the viral genomes of the 1977 H1N1 isolate and the 1950 virus so similar? If the H1N1 viruses had been replicating in an animal host for 27 years, far more genetic differences would have been identified. . . The suggestion is clear: the virus was frozen in a laboratory freezer since 1950, and was released, either by intent or accident, in 1977.

Other researchers concurred:

“The 1977 reemergence of the H1N1 subtype is an exceptional case: this virus from 1950 almost certainly escaped back into nature from frozen storage.”
The close similarity between the 1977 and 1950 viruses contradicted scientific understandings of how viruses evolve over time, as explained in 2006 by Edwin Kilbourne, of the New York Medical College:

“Where had the virus been that it was relatively unchanged after 20 years? If serially (and cryptically) transmitted in humans, antigenic drift should have led to many changes after 2 decades.” Kilbourne concluded that the few changes in the virus over decades led to a troubling question:

Reactivation of a long dormant infection was a possibility, but the idea conflicts with all we know of the biology of the virus in which a latent phase has not been found. Had the virus been in a deep freeze? This was a disturbing thought because it implied concealed experimentation with live virus, perhaps in a vaccine.

In a 2015 paper, Michelle Rozo, of the U.S. Department of Defense, and Gigi Kwik Gronvall, of Johns Hopkins University, assessed the possible origins of H1N1 in the 1977 pandemic, based on the widely held conclusion that, “the 1977 strain was indeed too closely matched to decades-old strains to likely be a natural occurrence.”

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-original-pandemic-lab-leak-debate

I remember the "Russian Flu" of 1977. I was infected and developed a temperature of over 40°C. I believe as a result of a secondary bacterial infection to the virus.

Do you know the next time I developed a temperature of over 40°C? (40.4°C) In January 2020. I also believe as a result of a secondary bacterial infection to a viral infection, as diagnosed by my doctor.

Between 1977 & 2020, I never got infected to an extent to ever develop a temperature of near to or over 40°C.

Call it anecdotal evidence if you wish, I certainly don't think this is just another "coincidence".

@RobinMG

https://t.me/robinmg/26667

Now that you mention it, high fever is the best healer of the body in and of itself - it should never (except extreme circumstances) be suppressed, especially with toxic paracetamol. I always let the fever run to over 40°C intentionally (with help of blankets etc.) during worst illness, and always get out of bed feeling fresh and well after 2-3 days - every time 😀💪 Suppressing the very mechanism built into the body designed to fight off infections as the first priority during sickness, is just another example of how insane and harmful modern 'medicine' is. Just a conjecture (not a medical advice) 😀👍

🇮🇹 MIDAZOLAM IN ITALY

The iatrogenic theory seems the most likely explanation of the mortality in Northern Italy in March 2020

"On the morning of March 21, 2020, a delivery vehicle out of Melsungen, Germany, arrived at the warehouse in Mirandola. It was a Saturday, and normally there were no deliveries on weekends. In these times, though, nothing was normal. The vehicle was carrying 10,000 doses of the sedative midazolam, which was urgently needed in Italy for the mechanical ventilation of thousands of COVID-19 patients who needed help breathing. Gabriele Ceratti worked with the italian team in Milano and Mirandola to make the delivery possible in just a few days."

https://www.bbraun.co.uk/en/stories/committed-to-fight-against-corona/italy-emergency-delivery-to-icus.html

Who invented the "15 Minute City"?

A person called Carlos Moreno:

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-6511/4/1/6

"The 15-minute City by Carlos Moreno: How the World Economic Forum's Vision Will Change Cities"

https://youtube.com/shorts/5JeaUn79wvo?feature=share

THE INVENTOR OF THE 15 MINUTE CITY OF SURVEILLANCE

Carlos Moreno | The OECD Forum Network

"About Carlos Moreno
Researcher of international renown, Carlos Moreno is Scientific director of the Chair "Entrepreneurship – Territory – Innovation", Panthéon Sorbonne University – IAE Paris (France). Carlos Moreno earned recognition as a scientist with an innovative mind, pioneer works and is unique approach on urban issues. He is also a scientific advisor of national and international figures of the highest level, including the Mayor of Paris Smart City special Envoy. He works at the heart of issues of international significance as a result of his research, ringing an innovative perspective on urban issues and offering solutions to the issues faced by the cities, metropolises and territories during the 21st century. Some of his concepts traveled the world: the Human Smart City, the 15 minute City, the Territory of 30mn. Carlos Moreno received the Foresight Medal by the French Academy of Architecture (2019). He is the author of “Urban life and proximity at the time of Covid-19”, published by Editions de l’Observatoire, July 2020"

https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/carlos-moreno

🇮🇹 COVID19 "PANDEMIC":

WHY ITALY?

"A financially bankrupt country with a financial sector desperate for bailouts and a command structure run by central bankers made for a willing and compliant government.
For reasons unrelated to the poor health of its citizens Italy has been dubbed “the sick man in Europe” for the past decade by the EU financial sector.
Like much of Europe the Italian government was facing extreme economic pressures in 2019.
While Europe as a whole was economically stagnant Italy officially slipped into recession in early 2019. Anxieties in the Eurozone were high with concerns that the “Italian problem” would spread and trigger a meltdown across an already teetering global economy.
Italy’s government debt had mushroomed to the fourth-largest in the world and the biggest in the EU. This crushing debt was placing a strain on the EU creating tension between Rome and Brussels.
By May 2019 Italy’s financial crisis was said to be “posing major threats to the monetary targets of the European Central Bank” and if not reined in, “could shatter market confidence in the entire Euro area, putting the EU in big trouble.”
The predicted tsunami of financial collapse” staring European Central Bankers in the face came to a head in 2019.
With no time to spare, the tried and true bailout scheme was proposed in order to rescue large investors. European commissioner for economy, Paolo Gentiloni, warned “A whopping €1.5 trillion ($ 1.63 trillion) could be needed to “deal with this crisis.”
All chatter about the financial industry bankrupting the nation by looting public funds, politicians destroying public services at the behest of large investors and the depredations of the casino economy were washed away with the fresh telling of a crisis sparked by the ‘outbreak of Covid-19.’
Predators who saw their financial empires coming apart at the seams resolved to shut down society and loot the world in an attempt to salvage their crumbling financial empires.
In order not to solve the problems they created these financial predators needed a cover story.
A cover story big enough to disguise the countless financial crimes they committed and suppress the social problems they created.
That cover story magically appeared in the form of a “novel virus.”
Ultimately the European Central Bank (ECB) agreed to a €1.31 trillion ($1.46 trillion) bailout of European banks followed up by the EU agreeing to a €750 billion recovery fund for European states and corporations.
This fat package of “long-term, ultra-cheap credit to hundreds of banks” was sold to the public as a necessary and benevolent program to cushion the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on businesses and workers.
As part of the EU recovery plan the €750 billion was divided in two parts. One included €500 billion to be allocated as grants based on each country’s “recovery needs.” Italy would be getting the biggest slice of the pie.
Europe’s ‘sick man’ received a much needed infusion- strings attached."

https://www.globalresearch.ca/italy-2020-inside-covid-ground-zero-europe/5811246

To me as an architect who lectured on urbanism for many years the "15 Minute City" represents a "Smart" Prison/Ghetto of real time biosurveillance disguised as a benevolent city of sustainable transportation. It's a CON.

@RobinMG

https://t.me/robinmg/26672

On Plato’s ‘Myth of Er:

“When modern culture tries to replace sin with ideas like error or insensitivity, or tries to banish words like “virtue,” “character,” “evil,” and “vice” altogether, that doesn’t make life any less moral; it just means we have obscured the inescapable moral core of life with shallow language. … Furthermore, the concept of sin is necessary because it is radically true.”

David Brooks: “The Road to Character”
https://theepochtimes.com/what-platos-myth-of-er-tells-us-today_5091944.html

CONFESSIONS OF A BBC JOURNALIST

COVID Estrangement Syndrome | Charlie Walsham | The Critic Magazine

"Whatever my shortcomings, I can’t help but conclude that my former tribe — the “progressive”, “liberal” left — took a chillingly authoritarian approach to Covid without any regard for the consequences. Few have admitted they were wrong or expressed contrition. Therefore, I can no longer count myself amongst their number. So what am I? 
I am a sufferer of Covid Estrangement Syndrome: politically homeless, distrustful of anyone who follows mainstream narratives unquestioningly.."

https://thecritic.co.uk/covid-estrangement-syndrome/