Connect with us


Klaus Schwab: Great Reset Will “Lead To Fusion Of Our Physical, Digital, & Biological Identity”

Klaus Schwab: Great Reset Will "Lead To Fusion Of Our Physical, Digital, & Biological Identity"



Klaus Schwab: Great Reset Will "Lead To Fusion Of Our Physical, Digital, & Biological Identity" Tyler Durden Tue, 11/17/2020 - 03:30

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Globalist Klaus Schwab made it clear that transhumanism is an integral part of “The Great Reset” when he said that the fourth industrial revolution would “lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity,” which in his book he clarifies is implantable microchips that can read your thoughts.

As we highlighted earlier, “The Great Reset” is attracting a deluge of fresh attention in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, which Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said was an “opportunity for a reset.”

The agenda is primarily based around dismantling the current capitalist system in favor of greater centralized technocrat rule which will lead to lower living standards, less fuel consumption, fewer civil liberties and the accelerated automation of jobs.

However, another key aspect to “The Great Reset,” or the “fourth industrial revolution” as Schwab calls it, is merging man with machine.

“What the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity,” Schwab told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Schwab went on to explain how his book, ‘Shaping the Future of The Fourth Industrial Revolution’, was particularly popular in China, South Korea and Japan, with the South Korean military alone purchasing 16,000 copies.

In the book, Schwab explains with excitement how upcoming technology will allow authorities to “intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior.”

He goes on to predict that this will provide an incentive for law enforcement to implement Minority Report-style pre-crime programs.

“As capabilities in this area improve, the temptation for law enforcement agencies and courts to use techniques to determine the likelihood of criminal activity, assess guilt or even possibly retrieve memories directly from people’s brains will increase,” writes Schwab. “Even crossing a national border might one day involve a detailed brain scan to assess an individual’s security risk.”

Schwab also waxes lyrical about the transhumanist utopian dream shared by all elitists which will ultimately lead to the creation of human cyborgs.

“Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us—they will become part of us,” writes Schwab.

“Indeed, some of us already feel that our smartphones have become an extension of ourselves. Today’s external devices—from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets—will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains.”

Schwab also openly endorses something the media still claims is solely a domain of discussion for conspiracy theorists, namely “active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies.”

The globalist hails the arrival of “implanted devices (that) will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals.”

So in other words, the “fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity” relates to the transhumanist singularity and a future where people have their every movement tracked and every thought read by an implantable microchip.

It isn’t a “conspiracy theory” when they’re openly telling you what they want to do.

*  *  *

New limited edition merch now available! Click here.

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Ivermectin: misuse against COVID risks undermining its use for other diseases

Ivermectin is vital for controlling a number of neglected tropical diseases, but mixed messaging and reported side-effects from its misuse against COVID could turn patients off it.





If you live in a western country, prior to the pandemic you probably hadn’t heard of the medicine ivermectin. It’s a very effective treatment for a number of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). These are a group of debilitating infections that can cause chronic illness and death. They disproportionately affect the world’s most vulnerable and deprived people.

Examples of NTDs include lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis, two worm-based infections that are spread by mosquitoes, and scabies, which is spread by the infestation of the skin with mites. All of these can be treated with ivermectin.

Hundreds of millions of ivermectin doses are administered every year, mostly across lower-income countries. In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a new roadmap for bringing cases of NTDs down worldwide over the next decade, with ivermectin being integral to this. It will be used to prevent and treat NTDs across many countries, including through mass drug administration.

But during the pandemic, ivermectin has also been touted as a COVID treatment. Despite a lack of good evidence to back this up, some countries have recommended ivermectin as part of their pandemic response. Panama and other parts of Latin America, for example, have endorsed using the drug. So too did India, before the Indian Council of Medical Research specified that the evidence isn’t there to support its use.

A Cochrane Review – a reliable wide-ranging piece of research that analyses the results of many separate pieces of research on a topic – has concluded that the evidence available so far on using ivermectin to treat COVID patients, both inside and outside of hospital, is of low quality.

Other wide-ranging reviews have suggested that the drug is beneficial against COVID, but scientists have flagged that some of the papers covered by these reviews use data inappropriately, with some of the research possibly even being fraudulent. Because the research these reviews are assessing isn’t rigorous, any suggestions they make about benefits aren’t robust.

The WHO has therefore advised that ivermectin shouldn’t be used as part of routine clinical practice when treating COVID. The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, has added that there’s “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease”.

But this hasn’t dampened support for ivermectin. There are many online groups calling for it to be used against COVID, and people around the world are buying the drug directly for this purpose.

Confusion undermines trust

This, my colleagues and I argue, leads us into a dangerous situation. Any health intervention depends upon high trust and uptake for success. If people consider ivermectin to be a COVID treatment, then there is a risk that these perceptions may lower trust in the drug as a way of treating NTDs.

For instance, people taking the drug without medical supervision to try to treat or prevent COVID have experienced vomiting, diarrhoea, seizures, dizziness and rashes. This may be because they have overdosed – so wouldn’t indicate a problem with the drug – but nevertheless risks undermining ivermectin’s perceived safety.

Reports of illness after taking ivermectin could have dangerous consequences. Even before the pandemic, in the UK there were rumours about ivermectin that have proven hard to dispel. These concerned the safety of using the drug to treat scabies infections in the elderly. Despite these claims being unsubstantiated, they still deter clinicians from using the drug. Fake news can be hard to fully correct, and could be even more so if negative perceptions build.

A french protester holding a placard that says 'Ivermectin: release the treatments'
Protesters have campaigned for ivermectin to be made available for treating COVID, despite insufficient evidence that it works. DEspeyrac/Shutterstock

Conflicting messaging can also be a problem. Its use for COVID being disputed, and it being endorsed by the WHO as an NTD treatment but rejected as a COVID treatment, could lead to doubts and misinformation surrounding the drug. Once misinformation is released, it can easily spread. It then takes resources to address and correct false claims that are made. In lower-income settings, such resources will be in short supply.

High uptake is key against NTDs

If there’s significant mistrust in public health programmes that use ivermectin, then the targeted elimination of some NTDs becomes very unlikely. These programmes often revolve around mass administration of the drug, and so are only highly successful in reducing the burden of disease when there’s high uptake.

Success can be limited if there is frequent non-adherence to treatment programmes. This can be an issue when rumours (typically around side-effects) are common.

The WHO’s NTD roadmap has a target to globally eliminate lymphatic filariasis as a public health problem by 2030. There are 17 countries – including Togo, Malawi and Sri Lanka – that have so far used mass administration of ivermectin to successfully eliminate the disease. Other countries are probably going to need to use the drug the same way – but could struggle to stamp the disease out if reports of side-effects or seemingly conflicting advice about the treatment deter people from taking it.

Ivermectin is an excellent medicine. Appropriate use of it will be vital to lowering the burden of NTDs and hitting the targets within the WHO’s roadmap. But to make sure its usefulness isn’t undermined, trust in the drug must not be threatened – and this means its misuse as a COVID treatment needs to end.

The Conversation

Michael Head has received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK Department for International Development.

Read More

Continue Reading


Tesla And Hertz – Whatever Next…

Tesla And Hertz – Whatever Next…

Authored by Bill Blain via,

“Democracy is absolutely the worst form of government, except for anything else…”

Tesla’s rise into the $1 trillion club is extraordinary – proving…



Tesla And Hertz – Whatever Next...

Authored by Bill Blain via,

“Democracy is absolutely the worst form of government, except for anything else…”

Tesla’s rise into the $1 trillion club is extraordinary – proving that listening to what the momentum crowd is buying, while suspending disbelief and fundamental analysis is one road to success. Hertz is a lesson in seizing the moment – its stock gains and free publicity from its new EV fleet will likely exceed the cost of the cars!

As I write this morning’s Porridge I am going to try and not sound like a bitter and twisted old man….

I suppose today’s lesson today might be: “Don’t over think it.” Every morning I wake up and try to make sense of the market noise to discern the big forces acting on markets, the underlying rationales, what the numbers really mean, the potential arbitrages, and the direction of trade flow. But I wonder if I’m doing it wrong.

It’s not what I think that matters. The only thing that’s important is what the market thinks.

The market is simply a voting machine where suffrage is simply the price of a stock. If the market believes Donald Trump’s sight-unseen social media empire is worth billions, so be it. If the market believes Meme Stocks are worth trillions, so be it. Whatever the market believes.. so be it.

As so many clever economists and traders have spotted before me.. it’s the madness of crowds that matters. Over the last few years understanding Behaviours has proved far more useful than forensic accounting skills when it comes to stock picking.

I make the mistake of calling out the inconsistencies of the “drivers” like Adam Neumann, Cathie Wood, Elon Musk and the Eminence Noirs driving SPACs and funds – rather than understanding what makes them look so attractive, clever, clearsighted and intuitive to so many market participants. Promise most people you are going to make them unfeasibly rich – and they will listen.

I make the schoolboy error of asking.. how?

Life is full of regrets. If we let them define us – we truly would be miserable.

Do I regret dumping Tesla in the wake of the cave-diving comments scandal? I reckoned it was massively overpriced around $70. Ever since I have pontificated why it’s not worth a fraction of even that valuation. I don’t regret selling, but I acknowledge I’ve been wrong about the price. But not because I got the fundamentals wrong – I misread the crowd. Failing to understand the momentum was my failure. I am less wealthy than I could have been.

Tesla is worth a Trillion dollars plus. Elon Musk is the richest guy on the planet. These are facts.

Tesla, remarkably, has become a great auto-company. It makes good cars. It understands the logistics of super-charging networks. It has front-run the switch from ICE to EVs, making them mainstream, leading a massive industrial shift, and forced the rest of the sector to play catch up. It changed the perception of EVs from milk-carts to desirable luxury status symbols. It will successfully open new plants and sell more cars. It’s the number one selling car in Europe this quarter – possibly because no one else can get hold of chips!

Perversely, Tesla’s success demonstrates momentum can take a company to fundamental strength. For much of Tesla’s life, sceptics like myself predicted it would stumble and fall, brought down most-likely by apparently insurmountable production problems, its debt load, or regulation. It didn’t happen. Instead it survived, thrived and has been able to reap the momentum and build a strong balance sheet on the back of its extraordinary stock price gains. It could potentially acquire whole swathes of its rivals and supply chain.

It’s been an extraordinary climb from likely disaster to undeniable success – and the one constant has been the support of dedicated Tesla fans. Frankly, it flabbergasts me just how Elon got away with it… but he did.

At this point you are expecting a But…

But…. What would be the point?

In the mind of the crowd facts like how 10-year old Telsa only just started making profits on selling cars don’t matter. Its consistently made profits for the last 2.25 years – largely from selling regulatory credits. Prior to that… Tesla racked up losses. It has consistently failed to deliver so many promises on deliveries, automation and new models. None of these facts matter.

It’s what the market believes that matters.

So, there is no point looking at Tesla this morning and trying to explain how it’s worth a trillion – a multiple of the much larger and more profitable Toyota. Let’s not wonder  why many analysts reckon its going higher. There is no point trying to fathom why a $4.2bn order from newly out-of-bankruptcy Hertz caused the stock price to ratchet up $110 bln yesterday.

This morning analysts are predicting Tesla stock will go higher, building from the “breakthrough psychological level of $900, right through the key $1200 milestone level, and then the next level is $1500.” There was nary a mention of its PE, fundamentals, margins or such irrelevancies… just that its going higher.


The Hertz trade is fascinating – Hertz has generated tremendous publicity for its re-launch, and enough stock upside to pay for the cars! It steals a march on any other hire firm wanting to build a fleet of EVs. Hertz went bust early in the pandemic and sold its whole fleet. But, as signs of economic recovery first appeared it became the perfect recovery play. After a bidding war, it was bought out from bankruptcy and restarted with a clean sheet. It now has its very own army of meme stock proponents. Its stock price has more than doubled to $12 on the OTC market.

The fact car hire firms are vulnerable businesses in a highly competitive market, or there are now literally hundreds of new EV makers, in addition to the incumbent ICE auto-manufacturers – all now competing in the EV space for Tesla’s lunch – doesn’t matter.

For now.

Always bear in mind Blain’s Market Mantra no 1: The Market has but one objective: to inflict the maximum amount of pain on the maximum number of participants.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/26/2021 - 08:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

FDA advisors mull use of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 jab in kids

FDA advisors will meet later today discuss the possibility of authorising Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty in
The post FDA advisors mull use of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 jab in kids appeared first on .



FDA advisors will meet later today discuss the possibility of authorising Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty in children as young as five years old.

If the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) gives the go-ahead, the FDA could approve emergency-use of Comirnaty in five to 11-year-olds in a matter of days, extending the use of the vaccine from its current 12 and upwards bracket.

The advisors could also be called on to consider Moderna’s COVID-19 as well for younger children in the coming weeks, as the biotech has just reported positive interim results from a phase 2/3 trial of its mRNA-1273 shot in kids aged six to 11.

Moderna has said it plans to submit the new data to global regulators including the EMA and FDA shortly.

While the data for both vaccines on stimulating an immune response in younger children looks strong, attention at the advisory committee meeting is expected to focus on safety – and particularly the risk of heart inflammation that has been observed in some recipients.

Both the mRNA vaccines have been linked to cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in males, so the advisors will have to consider whether that risk outweighs the benefits of vaccination in an age group known to be less likely to develop severe COVID-19.

Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have said their clinical trials haven’t generated any additional safety signals in children compared to adults.

Nevertheless, some children with COVID-19 do get very ill, and the risk of so-called ‘long COVID’ – where debilitating symptoms can persist for months even after a mild infection – has led to calls for jabs to be administered as widely as possible.

Vaccinating younger school-age children could also help to reduce circulation of SARS-CoV-2, according to some experts. Pfizer and BioNTech are also running studies in the under-fives with results due later this year.

Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla said recently that the spread of the delta variant and the “substantial threat” it poses to children means that vaccination should be offered to younger age groups.

As of 21 October, nearly 6.3 million children in the US had tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic, with 118,000 new cases in the previous week and more than a million in the preceding month, according to the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP).

“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is uncommon among children,” said the AAP in a recent update.

“However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects.”

Comirnaty is already authorised in the US for children aged 12 and above, while mRNA-1272 is currently being reviewed for this age group.

A recent Wall Street Journal report suggested however that the FDA is delaying a decision on Moderna’s jab until it completes a review of its heart inflammation risks, amid some speculation they may be higher than with the Pfizer/BioNTech shot.

Earlier this month, Sweden, Finland and Norway temporarily suspended use of mRNA-1273 in younger people, saying they should be vaccinated with Comirnaty instead, while a review of safety data is undertaken.

The post FDA advisors mull use of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 jab in kids appeared first on .

Read More

Continue Reading