WEF Demands Criminalization of ‘Climate Inaction,’ Punishable Up to Death

Frank BergmanSeptember 30, 2023 - 12:57 pm

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is calling on governments around the globe to criminalize so-called “climate inaction” with severe penalties for offenders.

In a recent article from Klaus Schwab’s unelected organization, the WEF demands that failing to comply with the globalist green agenda should be classed as a “human rights violation.”

In most civilized nations around the world, human rights violations are serious crimes that carry harsh punishments.

In the United States, punishments for human rights violations vary from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, according to the FBI.

If bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, offenders are fined or imprisoned for up to ten years or both.

If a human rights violation results in death, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, a person can be sentenced to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death, the FBI states.

Notably, green agenda advocates, Democrats, and their allies in the corporate media are repeatedly pushing the narrative that the so-called “climate crisis” is “killing people.”

By making “climate inaction” a human rights violation, those found guilty of “denying” so-called “global warming” could be sentenced to the death penalty.

According to the WEF, this would be the appropriate way to advance the green agenda.

“Is climate inaction a human rights violation?” the WEF asks in an article posted on its website.

In the article, the WEF suggests that there will be an increasing number of climate-related lawsuits in the coming years.

“Climate-related litigation generally seems poised for expansion,” the article states.

The WEF goes on to argue that “climate deniers” are responsible for the “record-breaking number of heat-related deaths.”

According to the Global Climate Change Litigation database, there have been over 130 cases worldwide that have brought human rights-based claims against governments.

Furthermore, a legal advocate for climate litigation, Clémentine Baldon, told the WEF last year that there is a strong expectation that human rights-related climate claims “will continue to increase.”

On Wednesday, a lawsuit went to the European Court of Human Rights, brought forth by six young individuals against 32 European countries.

The six individuals are alleging that the countries have failed to address the “climate crisis” allegedly caused by human activities.

“It’s being described as ‘unprecedented’ in terms of potential impact,” the WEF claims.

“A win could push some of the wealthiest countries in the world to ramp up their responses to a changing climate; a loss could affect the numerous other legal efforts now underway to target inaction.”

Last year, Norwegian Finance CEO and WEF speaker Kjerstin Braathen said that people should be prepared to suffer “pain,” inflation, and “energy shortages” in order to advance the green agenda of the WEF and United Nations (UN).

“We need to accept that there will be some pain in the process,” Braathen said.

“The pace that we need [to end climate change] will open up for missteps.

“It will open up for shortages of energy.

“It will create inflationary pressures, and maybe we need to start talking about that — that that pain is actually worth it.”

READ MORE: WEF Member Calls for 86% Reduction in World’s Population

 

Story at-a-glance

Jan Jekielek, senior editor with The Epoch Times and host of "American Thought Leaders," spoke with microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project¹ — about DNA contamination in COVID-19 shots.²

In a preprint study McKernan and colleagues assessed the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots. "DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements" was found.³

So, in addition to the spike protein and mRNA in COVID-19 shots, McKernan’s team also discovered simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone.⁴ The media were quick to "fact check" the finding, with the AP publishing a rebuttal titled, "No, ‘Monkey Virus DNA’ Was Not Found in COVID Vaccines.’"⁵

Speaking with Jekielek, McKernan took issue with the AP’s fact check article, noting their paper "never said that the entire virus was present in the vaccines. We said that the promoter and the enhancer and the origin was in there, along with the polyA signal. It seems as if the AP has erected a strawman argument where they are trying to debunk something that was never said."⁶

Could DNA Contamination in COVID Shots Cause Cancer?

The AP and other media outlets also downplayed the notion that DNA contamination in COVID-19 injections could contribute to cancer. "They are trying to make claims that this is not cancer-causing," McKernan says, but "there are limits on how much DNA can be in a vaccine precisely because of the concern over DNA integration."⁷

Such guidelines were based on research by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s molecular biologist Keith Peden,⁸ but when he evaluated how much DNA could "safely" exist in vaccines, he didn’t consider lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) and other factors that could enhance how much DNA could enter a cell. McKernan explains:⁹

"Here are two additional things going on that mean the DNA in these vaccines is more likely to get to the nucleus and integrate into the genome than the information they had at that time. When they came to those regulations, they were assuming the previous DNA in the shots were host cell DNA, like maybe you grew the vaccine in some type of monkey kidney cell.

As a result of this, there's background monkey DNA, or background human DNA, due to whatever host cell line they use. We have something very different going on here. We have a well-known promoter that's used in gene therapy that's inside the vaccines that's getting injected through an LNP that makes it very effective at transecting cells. Then it has a signal in there that drives that DNA into the nucleus.

I don't think Keith Peden had anticipated that when he came up with these 10 nanogram limits of DNA. I'd say the verdict is still out as to whether or not they can be cancer-causing, but the risk is certainly elevated from what the FDA's guidelines have been constructed off of."

How SV40 Promoters in COVID Shots Could Drive Disease

McKernan explains that in many cases, when tumors are sequenced, they’re found to contain sequences from SV40 and other viruses, which can integrate into your genome, causing disruptions and instability that can trigger the cell line to grow out of control.¹⁰

In the case of COVID-19 shots, he says, "The concern is if this DNA integrates the genome, one portion of the SSV40 sequence is an SV40 promoter, a very strong promoter, which means it drives transcription wherever it lands in the genome.

If this happens to drop itself in front of a proto-oncogene [a gene that has the potential to cause cancer] and drives a lot of expression off of a gene that's known, if you hyper-express it and turn the cell cancerous, then we have a concern that DNA is in fact doing that."¹¹

But not only do COVID-19 shots contain SV40 promoters, they also contain a 72 base pair insertion that makes the promoter much more aggressive and also drives the sequence into the nucleus of the cell. "And they're right next to each other," McKernan says. "If this DNA moves into the nucleus and it drags a promoter with it, and that integrates in front of a gene, it can disrupt gene regulation and potentially lead to the oncogenesis."¹²

At the same time, a Pfizer trial showed that the shots may induce lymphocytopenia and neutropenia, or low concentrations of white blood cells. This could further allow for cancerous changes to proliferate. "After vaccination, patients have lower white blood cells, which you need to clear out cells that are misbehaving, like cancer cells," McKernan adds.¹³

He’s also seen research showing that the spike protein from COVID-19 shots can enter the nucleus and disrupt regulation of p53 and BRCA1 genes:¹⁴

"People are probably familiar with BRCA1 because of breast cancer genes, but p53 is also another guardian of the genome. These are genes that clean up genomes that have been broken or have integration events ...

If you have all three of those potentially increased integration risks happening, with white blood cell reduction and spike protein inhibiting the genes that are meant to clean up this type of problem, the combination of those things could certainly be tied to the rise in cancer that we're currently seeing."

Download the Entire Article for FREE

COVID Shots’ Lipid Nanoparticles Could Also Be Toxic

Another concerning compound in COVID-19 shots are the lipid nanoparticles, or LPNs. Because natural mRNA is easily broken down, this means the gene therapy needs a special delivery system to make it to the body’s cells. Moderna and Pfizer used lipid nanoparticles that contain polyethylene glycol (PEG)¹⁵ for this purpose.

The mRNA is wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that carry it to your cells, and the LNPs are "PEGylated" — that is, chemically attached to PEG molecules to increase stability.¹⁶ In their corporate prospectus¹⁷ released in 2018 at the time of their stock market launch, Moderna acknowledged that their LNPs carried risks.¹⁸ Among them, Moderna stated:

• "Most of our investigational medicines are formulated and administered in an LNP which may lead to systemic side effects related to the components of the LNP which may not have ever been tested in humans."¹⁹
• "While we have continued to optimize our LNPs, there can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions including IgA, IgM, IgE or IgG or some combination thereof, or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP."²⁰

Meanwhile, the shot trials didn’t include a control to show what happens if you just expose people to LNPs without mRNA. McKernan says:²¹

"What happens to people in that case? We don't know the answer to that ... a year from now, there will be more of a scientific consensus that spike protein was a bad idea, and that maybe we should switch this to a different protein or maybe we should use this platform to hit RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] or flu. If we don't know the toxicity of the LNPs alone, that might be just as dangerous of an approach.

We really do need to understand if this transfection is a good way to fend off a respiratory virus. Many people have argued that this is a horrible way to thwart off a respiratory virus because you're building immunity in the wrong compartment of the body.

You really need immunity in the nasal mucosa, and you're not going to get very effective nasal mucosa immunity through injection. You take on all of these injection risks where you're sending LNPs through the entire body and it's not very targeted."

What Happens if Shot Particles Enter the Ovaries?

There are concerns that shot particles are traveling throughout the body with unknown effects. Pfizer’s biodistribution study, which was used to determine where the injected substances go in the body, showed the spike protein from the shots accumulated in "quite high concentrations" in the ovaries.²²

A Japanese biodistribution study for Pfizer’s jab also found that vaccine particles move from the injection site to the blood, after which circulating spike proteins are free to travel throughout the body, including to the ovaries, liver, neurological tissues and other organs.²³According to McKernan:²⁴

"We know from the biodistribution study that some of these LNPs are getting to the ovaries, so that's a huge concern. If 1% of these LNPs get to the ovaries, there's 40 billion in each shot, we're getting down to 400 million that go to the ovaries. Now you're starting to really concern yourself.

If there's only 300,000 oocytes in each female, and there are 400 million LNPs down there, these numbers are worrisome. What are we doing to the germline in the future generation?"

Already, a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — and funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women's Health — confirmed an association between menstrual cycle length and COVID-19 shots.²⁵

The implication is that the shots could be having an effect on fertility. As the Obstetrics & Gynecology researchers noted, "Menstrual cyclicity is an overt sign of health and fertility."²⁶

‘There Is Residual DNA in Both Shots’

As for why the SV40 promoter and enhancer is in COVID-19 shots in the first place, it’s related to the plasmid growth medium, which is E. coli. McKernan explains:²⁷

"It's [SV40 promoter] a common tool used in the biotech industry to drive very aggressive expression of a gene. In this case, Pfizer has it in front of a neomycin resistance gene, which drives resistance for neomycin. The reason they want it there is so that they can grow this plasmid in E. coli.

E. coli doubles every 30 minutes, so you can grow E. coli overnight and get gobs of this DNA. You then have to purify it from E. coli to make RNA out of it.

There is some risk that if you don't fully purify it from E. coli, you can leave behind what's known as endotoxin or lipopolysaccharides, usually abbreviated as LPS. This is an additional risk that Pfizer took on. Moderna's doing a very similar thing, although they don't have SV40 in there. They are using E. coli to amplify their plasmid DNA, and it comes with some of this risk.

What we do know is there is residual DNA in both shots, and this DNA is either right above the regulatory limit or tenfold higher ... When looking at RNA to DNA ratios, it's even worse. The actual outcome is that there is more like a 17- to 80-fold gap from what is required in the regulations, as best we can tell."

According to McKernan, Pfizer also used two different tools to measure RNA versus DNA. This allowed them to "cook the books," inflating the amount of RNA and depressing the amount of DNA so "they can squeak through these regulatory requirements without anyone really understanding what's going on."²⁸ Further, Pfizer didn’t disclose its SV40 information to the European Medicines Agency, which McKernan believes was intentional:²⁹

"They did that because they know the SV40 region is a very controversial base in its history in the vaccine field. The polio vaccines were contaminated with the full virus, not just these little components, but the full virus.

The full virus has over 5,000 bases. The components we have are about 466 bases of the virus, but they're arguably the most functional aspects of the virus's genome for replicating and for gene expression. The fact that they hid that this is in there from the EMA is a concern."

While McKernan and colleagues continue to spread the word about SV40 promotor and components in COVID-19 shots, the media continues to try to discredit their findings. McKernan points out again that they never stated the SV40 virus is in the shots — but that doesn’t make their study any less worrisome:³⁰

"We said there was an SV40 promoter and some of the components. We were very clear about that, but it quickly got associated with, ‘These guys are claiming there's something there that isn't there.’ Then everyone missed the point that there are components of SV40 that are actually quite functional that we need to be concerned about.

They are in these vaccines because they've been studied as being gene therapy tools ... They are perhaps not as frightening as what happened in the polio vaccine, which some people have attributed to causing some cancers in the past. It's still a controversy in that field, but there's still things that we need to know about.

... There does seem to be a tendency for them [media] to either erect a strawman, or flood the zone with alternate information, so that an average person is just confused on what to believe, because there's a mixture of messages coming through the media that are meant to drown out the real signal."

 https://rumble.com/embed/v3c905g/?pub=bomif

 

September is Suicide Awareness Month

Looking Back on the History of Antidepressants Blackbox Suicide Warnings

World Council for Health

September is Suicide Awareness month. It’s a time to pause and remember the lives lost to suicide as well as pay respect to the families who have endured this devastating and life changing loss. It's a club that no one wishes to be a part of, and tragically, it has far too many members.

Personally, I also want to acknowledge and honor the families that I met over the years, particularly during the early stages of my drug safety advocacy. Together, we grieved, shared our stories, and helped each other survive and make sense of this new reality of life without our loved ones. We became each other's lifelines, offering solace and strength in the face of our new reality.

Every September gives us an opportunity to call attention not just to suicide but also to the meds often used for mental health. With more and more people being prescribed antidepressants and the growing global mental health crisis, it's crucial to remind folks about the important safety issues and the checkered past of these medications. Antidepressants didn't always come with FDA black box suicide warnings like they do now. 

Twenty years ago when my husband died of Zoloft-induced suicide, there were no warnings on antidepressants about the need to be closely monitored for changes when first going on antidepressants, changes in dosage, or coming off the drugs. We were completely blindsided and had to put the pieces together on what was long known about these medications. Although the information came too late for our family, I knew I needed to do whatever I could so no other family would ever have to learn the hard way, like we did. This became my God-given mission to share our family’s story and help get blackbox suicide warnings added to antidepressants. If just one life was saved, then Woody’s death was not in vain. 

---

---

Antidepressants have a long legal and regulatory history and it always bears repeating. In 1991 when the FDA first held hearings on the emergence of violence and suicide with Prozac, I was fresh out of college just starting my first job in advertising. The FDA hearings on Prozac were not on my radar as it wasn’t relevant to my life. 

Fast forward to 2003, when my husband was given Zoloft for insomnia I didn’t give the drug a second thought. Zoloft was heavily advertised and sold as “safe and effective.” Woody trusted his doctor and assumed the drug would help with his sleeplessness and certainly not harm him. We never once questioned the drug.

Looking back, I sure wish that I paid attention or was informed of the issues with antidepressants first raised in the 1991 FDA hearings. Woody would still be here today. 

This is why I continue to tell Woody’s cautionary tale two decades later to raise awareness about the issues surrounding FDA blackbox suicide warnings and the controversies that led to their implementation in 2004 and 2006. 

Many families may still be unaware about these historical occurrences, including the political and regulatory disputes, including congressional inquiries, surrounding the concealment of data regarding antidepressant-related suicides in children by both pharmaceutical companies and the FDA.

2005 Congressional Hearings on Antidepressants and Suicide in Children

Stories and the Data: The Fusion of Head and Heart

Shortly after Woody's death, I had the opportunity to connect with other courageous families in Washington DC, and it became clear that I was not alone in my experiences. Our stories were eerily similar. Drawing upon my career in advertising, I understood the power of telling our personal and collective story to help drive meaningful change. It was important to share these heart-wrenching stories alongside data and research. I like to call it the "head and heart strategy." 

Fortunately my lawyers at Baum Hedlund (now Wisner Baum) connected me with some of the foremost independent research and medical experts from around the globe who had been diligently working to uncover the risks associated with antidepressants for decades. This collaboration was nothing short of magical, as it brought together a group of dedicated individuals committed to sharing this important story and urging regulators, Congress, and the media to issue warnings about the link between antidepressants and suicide.

---

---

As a result of the 2003 warning from the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regarding the heightened risk of suicidal behaviors in children prescribed antidepressants, the FDA had no choice but to launch an investigation and hold public hearings to scrutinize the connection between these medications and suicides. 

On October 15, 2004, after years of increasing evidence and public pressure, and likely influenced by Britain's prior action, the FDA finally acknowledged the connection between antidepressant drugs and suicide. In response, the FDA issued its most stringent warning, the black box warning, for all antidepressants.

However, the blackbox warning did not extend to adults. Consequently, public pressure persisted, compelling the FDA to once again examine the potential link between antidepressants and suicidal behavior in adult patients. 

One would think that if the FDA was genuinely interested in addressing the issue of suicidality, they would have sought input from prominent independent critics, researchers and lawyers who have been actively engaged with this matter for over 15 years. But they didn’t and instead engaged conflicted industry researchers to conduct the meta analysis. 

Here’s a timeline of Prozac history and other antidepressant issues.

Instead, the leading independent experts like David Healy, Joseph Glenmullen, and Peter Breggin and the lawyers who had litigated antidepressant suicides cases were each given 3 minutes during the Open Public Hearing to present their data. This was the same amount of time families were given to tell their loved ones’ story. To this day, it has never made sense to me why the FDA wouldn’t be interested in hearing all sides of a safety issue. 

Share (UN)Acceptable Collateral Damage

2006 Victims & Expert Press Briefings 

This is why I joined forces with Vera Sharav at the Alliance for Human Research Protection to organize two press conferences in advance of the FDA hearings to brief the public and media on the issues. Presentations were made by Kim Witczak and Eric Swan, and by Vera Hassner Sharav, Joseph Glenmullen, MD, David Healy, MD, John Abramson, MD, David Cohen, Ph.D, and Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. of the legal firm Baum Hedlund. 

The press release below includes important facts of the clinical issues and a body of evidence withheld from the FDA advisory committee. The FDA withheld all critical analyses, internal company documents that were now in the public domain, and all reports by outside independent experts—just as these same FDA officials had done in 1991 when FDA last discussed the adult SSRI suicidality data at a public hearing. 

FDA’s concerted effort to limit and contain the discussion to a selective dataset that it alone has access to, is contrary to the scientific method. Thus, the reason we held this press briefing to shine a light on the issues.

2006 Press Conference Media Advisory on Antidepressants and Adult Suicidality

156KB ∙ PDF file

The Alliance for Human Research Protection and Woodymatters convened a press briefing at National Press Club day before the FDA Advisory Committee hearing on adult suicidality. Kim Witczak and her brother-in-law, Eric Swan, spoke on behalf of victim advocates for drug safety. It was followed by independent experts who reviewed scientific and clinical evidence, shedding light on what was known 20 years ago, and what is known and not known in 2006 about the safety and efficacy of antidepressant drugs.

Download

Below are video presentations from the world class experts, doctors, researchers, and attorneys. The information is as relevant today in 2023 as it was in 2006. 

Kim Witczak, Victim Advocate, Co-Founder of Woodymatters

Vera Sharav, Alliance for Human Research Protection 

Dr. Joseph Glenmullen

Part One - David Healy 

Part Two - David Healy 

Part Three - David Healy 

Dr. John Abramson, Author of Overdosed America

Karen Barth Menzies, Attorney 

Part One - David Cohen

Part Two - David Cohen

December 13, 2006 FDA Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee Hearing

There were over 70 individuals and mental health/suicide prevention organizations and professionals who spoke during the Open Public Hearing. The comments ranged from “Antidepressants saved lives and afraid warnings will scare people from taking the drugs” to “Antidepressants destroyed our loved ones lives and pushed for warnings.”  As you can imagine, emotions and tensions ran high. The room was standing room only and included an overflow room. Cameras from all the major news networks from around the world as well as armed security guards lined the room. 

Here’s a funny story from the hearing… FDA's Bob Temple arrived late to the meeting, soaked from the rain, and walked in carrying a Pfizer umbrella. Truly unforgettable. I am sure he didn’t even think of the optics, but it wasn’t lost on the crowd.

Below are a few of the public testimonies that were captured by the media or film makers. I wish that the entire hearing was recorded, but this will give you a little taste. Again, these hearings took place at a time when there was no social media and FDA hearings were not recorded like they are today. (Note: David Cohen shared his brief personal impressionsand summary of Open Public Speaker comments from the December 13 meeting of the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee as well as the press briefings.)  

Mark & Cheryl Miller 

Mary Ellen Winter & Family

Beverly Hatcher

Jayne Richner

Rosemary Dorsett

Ellen Hansen

Kim Witczak

Dr. Glenmullen

David Healy

Dr. Peter Breggin

Ultimately, the FDA extended the blackbox suicide warning to age 24. To this day, there are NO suicide warnings for adults despite FDA and drug companies knowing for decades that all ages are at risk. As I always say, how does the drug know you are 24 today but 25 tomorrow and no longer at risk? It makes no sense as well as creates the false narrative of being safe for adults. 

If our genuine aim is to prevent suicides, then it is absolutely essential that this information is made widely available and openly discussed with patients of all ages and their families. There exists an entirely new generation that remains unaware of the risks and historical context of antidepressants. This is why news stories, like the one below from 2019, continue to be vital in maintaining public awareness on this critical and potentially life saving issue.

Two decades later, I still receive messages from families grappling with the pain of trying to understand their loved ones’ suicides. Their stories are profoundly heartbreaking, particularly as they uncover details about the medications in question. It is indefensible that this information remains inadequately discussed. That’s precisely why these stories and insights from over 20 years ago remain as pertinent and critical as ever. 

Take the time to educate yourself and not just blindly trust like we did. It just might save you or your loved ones’ life. 

Share

Leave a comment

 

‘Aliens’ in Mainstream News and the Potential for False Flag Operations

ByWorld Council for Health June 12, 2023

The World Council for Health (WCH) takes note of predictable developments in the establishment’s crisis playbook, highlighting the existence of unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP), otherwise known as unidentified flying objects (UFOs). 

Given the historical record of false and misleading information from corrupt governments and establishment media sources, it is important to exercise calm and critical thinking. While we may not be the only beings in the known and unknown universe, it is probable that the sudden acceleration in mainstream coverage of this topic is intentional, and it is aimed at a corporate control and profit agenda that will affect humanity negatively.

After years of denial, silence and censorship, the military industrial complex (MIC) and surveillance security industry have a vested interest in driving the narrative that UAPs exist, and that they pose a threat to humans. This creates a convenient pretext for military expansion into space, with exploitative space force budgets that are paid for by the people. It also lays the groundwork for man-made PHEIC (public health emergencies of international concern) announcements, based on false flag attacks—that lead to lockdowns and other anti-human measures, which restrict our fundamental rights in ways that can overshadow the Covid-19 chapter.

The United Nations 

Like the World Health Organisation (WHO), the unelected supranational called the United Nations (UN), with a track record of failures, corruption and crimes, is seeking vast new powers and stronger “global governance” tools to deal with international emergencies such as pandemics. These include a major event in “outer space”, “unforeseen risks” (‘black swan’ events),climate or environmental events; environmental degradation; pandemics; accidental or deliberate release of biological agents; disruptions in the flow of goods, people, or finance; disruptions in cyberspace or “global digital connectivity” and economic crisis.

Experience and wisdom teaches us that we should not believe anything we are told by the corporate-government-media establishment. While it may be a challenge to distinguish between what is a real UAP/UFO from what is manufactured to terrorise us into giving up more freedoms, we have no reason to believe that the ongoing Hollywood propaganda on ‘evil aliens’ is true. WCH intends on engaging experts on this topic.

A. References:

• Alien technology whistleblower: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft
• UFO research team: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nasas-ufo-research-team-to-brief-the-public-cd537b3f 
• CIA UFO evidence: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/ufos-the-central-intelligence-agency-cia-collection/ 

B. Research notes:

1. False flags: A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on a second party. The term ‘false flag’ is also an expression referring to acts committed by someone misrepresenting their allegiance. The term originates from naval warfare where a ship could fly the flag of a party other than its own identity. In the example of naval warfare, this could be used to allow the party misrepresenting its identity to get close to the ship or to board. 

In geopolitics, false flags are typically used to influence public perception. They can be used to stimulate public fervour for war against the apparently attacking party, as in the Reichstag fire of 1933, which created the justification for the Nazi party to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties. Other examples include the Gulf of Tonkin Incident of 1964, which was used as justification for expansion of the military operations in Vietnam and Indo-China. 

Planned false flags include Operation Northwoods (1962), which was a plan for CIA operatives to stage and commit acts of terrorism against US military and civilian targets and ascribe blame to the Cuban government. This would be to provide a justification for a war against Cuba. There is also a substantial body of evidence as well as experts in the United States and elsewhere who believe that 9/11 was a false flag attackintended primarily to launch endless wars in various Middle Eastern countries that have oil, gold and other resources.

2. Persuasive Technology Weaponised

a. Brain Warfare

• Battle for your brain: https://mronline.org/2021/10/13/behind-natos-cognitive-warfare-battle-for-your-brain-waged-by-western-militaries/
• ‘Voice of God’ weapon: “Holosonic Research Labs and American Technology Corporation both have versions of directed sound, which can allow a single person to hear a message that others around don’t hear. DARPA appears to be working on its own sonic projector. Intriguingly, Strategy Page reports that troops are using the Long Range Acoustic Device as a modified Voice of God weapon”
• Deepfakes and international conflict:https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/FP_20230105_deepfakes_international_conflict.pdf

b. Holographic technology

• 3D holograms breakthrough: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/ai-artificial-intelligence-3d-holograms-breakthrough/
• Beam me up Scotty? https://www.radiantvisionsystems.com/blog/beam-me-scotty-new-developments-hologram-technology  
• Realistic 3D holograms:https://scitechdaily.com/overcoming-two-long-standing-bottlenecks-new-advance-paves-way-to-more-realistic-3d-holograms/ 

We are a people-powered platform for world health representing 190+ coalition partners in more than 49 countries.