Dalelorenzo's GDI Blog
21Sep/210

SEC vs. Kik Interactive Inc. – Another Test for the Howey Test

On June 4, 2019, the SEC registered a complaintin SDNY against Kik Interactive Inc.( "Kik" ), a Canadian busines, for failing to register the furnish and sale of its digital clues called Kin pursuant to Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933( the "Securities Act" ). The disorder reiterates the SEC's long-standing position since it first issued the DAO Report in July 2017 that digital signs may be defences and that the U.S. federal protections regulations would apply regardless of whether the consideration paid was virtual currency or whether the securities were issued through a administered record technology instead of in the certificated form. According to the complaint, the Kik executives knew of the risk that the Kin tokens "couldve been" protections under the Securities Act but failed to sell them to the U.S. investors in a legally compliant nature. This complaint did not come as a surprise to the company or the larger blockchain community. Although we cannot foretell how the example will turn out( and this may go on to become a full-blown jury trial ), the work requires several interesting observances about the Kik story, including tasks for future token issuers. Please note that comments and observations are based on the facts as they were presented in the SEC ailment. These information is disagreed by Kik in the process of case. 1. There were no allegations of fraud made against Kik. This contingency is solely about the violation of the registration provisions of the Securities Act. There ought to have prior SEC enforcement actions against ICO issuers that should not involve allegations of fraud but they all were colonized with the SEC( In re Matter of Paragon Coin, Inc ., where the issuer developed $12,066, 000, set with the SEC on November 16, 2018, paid a $250,000 disadvantage, offered rescission titles to investors, and agreed to register signs with the SEC; In the Matter of Carrierreq, Inc ., d/ b/ a Airfox, where the issuer created approximately $15 million, and determined with the SEC on the same day and with the same importances; and In re Matter of Munchee Inc ., where the issuer raised about $ 60,000 in the one day ICO, refunded all money, and settled on December 11, 2017 without penalty ). 2. Kik caused approximately $100 million from more than 10,000 investors, approximately half of whom were U.S. investors. This was a large offering that was bound to attract the attention of the regulators. 3. Kik actually attended two Kin renders that became integrated. The first offer and sale took place from early July to September 11, 2017, whereby Kik received approximately $ 49.5 million from about 50 investors, including 21 U.S. investors. This was a private furnish of SAFTs( Simple Agreements for Future Tokens) exclusively to accredited investors. The companionship equipped a PPM to the investors and registered a Structure D, giving SAFTs as insurances. The SAFT contracts obligated Kik to generate and distribute half of the clues at the time of the public sale that had to take place before the September 30, 2017 deadline or return to the investors 70% of the funds. Since the company was running out of money, it got no choice but to conduct the public sale of tokens that has just taken place between September 12 -2 6, 2017, including dispense Kin tokens to the early investors, prior to the deadline. The furnishes were integrated in part because of( i) the proximity in time between the SAFT offering and the public sale( the last SAFT was sold on September 11, 2017, one day before the launch of the public sale ),( ii) the fact that the clues issued in the public sale and the tokens underlying the SAFT had the same characteristics, and( iii) the facts of the case that the company failed to distinguish between the funds received through SAFTs and the funds received from the general public. 4. Kik did not offer the Kin tokens to the Canadian investors in its public marketing made to the retail investors from September 12 to September 26, 2017. Interestingly, based on the advice of its Canadian guidance and after engaging into discussions with the Ontario Securities Commission, Kik excluded Canadian investors from the public sale because, based on a Canadian exam that is similar to the Howey test, the Kin tokens were determined to be certificates under Canadian regulation. However, Kik did not reach out to the SEC and did not restrict U.S. investors from purchasing the signs. In reality, only the residents of Canada, Cuba, China and The north koreans( and inhabitants of New York and Washington governments) were excluded from the offering. 5. Kik failed to treat the underlying Kin signs as defences where reference is offered and sold them through the SAFTs. The company knew at the time of offering and selling the SAFTs that it would not be able to build the "Kin Ecosystem" before the token delivery appointment, which, according to the SAFT contracts, had to take place before the September 30 th deadline. This close-fisted deadline granted only for a space of several months( and in situations of the SAFT sold on September 11 th, merely a 20 -day window) to do so, which was clearly insufficient time to build a fully functioning platform for the Kin tokens with all the features predicted by Kik. Therefore, it was not reasonably possible for the Kin tokens to exist as "utility tokens" on the "Kin Ecosystem" and they had to be treated as protections. The actuality that they did income some practicality later should be irrelevant to the analysis of the initial rationing of the Kin tokens back in September 2017.6. The public sale was conducted several months after the SEC questioned its DAO Report, advising issuers that tokens could be securities. However, Kik did not heed the SEC guidance. 7. In its press release issued under June 4, 2019, Kik referred to its Kin tokens as a currency and alleged that the SEC unfolded the Howey test "well beyond its definition". It is a question of fact whether Kin is now more like a money rather than a defence. It is a different question of fact whether Kin was more like a insurance than a currency at the time of its initial issuance in 2017. It should be noted that at the time Kin tokens were issued, the company was still building its "Kin Ecosystem" where Kin tokens could be used for fees, and therefore, unlike Ether, was not decentralized and depended on the efforts of Kik's developers. As the SEC noted in paragraph 126 of the number of complaints, "There was, simply , good-for-nothing to obtain with Kin at the times Kik sold the clues through September 26, 2017... ". It will be up to the courts to decide whether Kin tokens were insurances at the time of writing of their issuance. Since the SEC's complaint is in line with its prior enforcement actions and interpretive liberations on the subject, the results of such the Kik case may either reaffirm once again the SEC's position or, if Kik were to prevail, return the Wild West of 2017 ICOs.Perhaps, instead of applying and perhaps "stretching" the age-old Howey test one more time, it is time to adopt a new legal regiman suitable for digital asset offerings( as it is being done in multiple jurisdictions across the globe )? But then remember, special courts are not legislative bodies and are bound to apply the law as currently written.This article is not legal advice and was written for general informational purposes only. It is not conveys anyone else's thoughts except for the author's. If you have questions or observations about the section or are interested in learning more about this topic, feel free to contact its columnist Arina Shulga.

Read more: businesslawpost.com

15Aug/210

Fauci Exposed: Historical Research of COVID

By now, many have heard that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases( NIAID) -- an weapon of the National Institutes of Health( NIH) -- has funded contentious gain-of-function( GOF) investigate on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology( WIV ).

Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIAID director, told a House Appropriations subcommittee that $600,000 was given to the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled the money to WIV over a five-year period for aims of studying at-bat coronaviruses and whether they could be transmitted to humans. 1

Fauci has repudiated fund GOF research, even though evidence establishes he did fund it, 2 but it exits much more profound than this. Now that it’s been proven beyond a rational fear that SARS-CoV-2 is laboratory deduced -- the likely result of GOF research -- we must look back on Fauci’s early pandemic response under a different lens.

Fauci Censored Science, Stymied Research to Protect Himself

Charles Rixey, a COVID-1 9 psychoanalyst, combed through 100,000 sheets of FOIA documents and reviewed more than 1,000 investigate sections, wording a conclusion over six months of investigation that “one of the worst bloomings of the pandemic is the evaporation of public trust in scientists.”

This erosion of trust came at the sides of “America’s doctor, ” Fauci, who leap to action at the start of the pandemic -- not to protect the public, as his duty necessitated, but to protect himself, Rixey alleges. Rixey wrote on Prometheus Shrugged: 3

“Fauci quietly but instantly ensured that scientific censorship was implemented, in big meter, to prevent public awareness of the extent of his role in GOF research and the contentions bordering it. The sign proves that, at the start of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci and many preceding scientists moved to protect themselves -- not us, who weren’t yet aware of the potential calamity at our doorstep.

Fauci LED the efforts to obstruct research into COVID's origins, colluding with the President's Science Advisor Kelvin Droegemeier and Wellcome Trust head Jeremy Farrar, to proactively threaten consideration of the evidence that instantly restrained their world-wide experiment initiatives to the lab at the center of the COVID-1 9 pandemic.

To date, all of their efforts have been focused on preventing disclosure of embarrassing ties-in -- not foreclosing another tale pathogen from triggering a world-wide pandemic; to prevent future scrutiny , not future tragedy.”

Fauci Pushes Natural Origin, Despite Evidence of Engineering

One of the major pieces of publicity is "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, "4 a newspaper published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 that became the preeminent "proof" that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural start and couldn't maybe have come from a lab.

It was later revealed that Fauci, Farrar and Dr. Francis Collins, NIH director, had a hand in the paper, as one of its writers wrote a March 6, 2020 email to the trio and colleagues, thanking them for their "advice and leadership."

According to Rixey, however, the five journalists of the Nature Medicine paper, who he refers to as “the Proximals, ” were aware of the existence of a furin cleavage locate( FCS) on the virus as early as February 1, 2020, the working day a conference call was organized by Farrar and Fauci “to address several aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that pointed towards an artificial start, by means of generating adaptive alters through passaging and/ or direct manipulation of the genome.”5 He lends: 6

“Also fully overshadowed comes from the fact that at least one, and very likely all, of the person or persons on the conference call were aware of the existence of the FCS ... It’s even worse when you believe that 18 months later, they still can’t explain it -- the Proximals refuse to respond to the fact that the FCS doesn’t exist within the sarbecovirus sub-genus that SARS-CoV-2 falls under.

This is a problem, because members of the sub-genus are too distinct to recombine with the varieties of SARS-like viruses from other disciplines that do contain the FCS.”

The FCS is significant. To gain have entered into your cadres, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cadre. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved( reduction ). Without this protein fissure, the virus would simply attach to the receptor and not get any further. “The furin site is why the virus is so transmissible, and why it occupies the heart, the intelligence and the blood vessels, ” Dr. Steven Quay asked. 7

While furin cleavage places do exist in other viruses like Ebola, HIV, zika and yellow-bellied excitement, they’re not naturally found in coronaviruses, which is one reason why researchers have called the furin cleavage site the “smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. The entire group of coronaviruses to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs does not contain a single precedent of a furin rift site, Quay said.

Fauci’s Noble Lie

The concept of the royal lie was first described by Plato. It refers to the notion that, in the case of high-status individuals or nominated public chairwomen, it’s acceptable to lie if the lie is induced in the interest of the common good.

Fauci’s lying is a prime example of this concept, as his expertise has been held as indisputable by mainstream media since the beginning of the COVID-1 9 pandemic. He’s been caught lying to both the public and the U.S. Senate on a number of issues, but nothing has been done about it.

Fauci hasn’t acted alone, but he’s been one of the most prominent faces behind what could amount to one of the greatest royal lies of all time.

“The world’s preceding experts in virology and public health called attention to a threat by setting the world on fire, rather than themselves -- and then blaming us for being too simple to believe their noble lie, ” Rixey writes. 8P TAGEND

2015: Novel Bat SARS-Like Virus Created to Infect Human Cells

Rixey makes books back to January 31, 2020, when virologist Kristian Andersen -- one of the Proximals, whose newspaper received the virus could not have been created in a lab -- emailed Fauci, cc’ing Farrar, stating, "The unique features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (< 0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the strings to see that some of the features( potentially) seem engineered."9

This exchange was a precursor to the February 1, 2020 conference call mentioned above. Another big-hearted musician in the princely lie is Ralph Baric, Ph.D ., at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who developed humanized mouse is set out in GOF research by WIV. 10

Baric worked closely with Shi Zhengli, Ph.D ., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman, ” on study expending genetic engineering to create a “new bat SARS-like virus ... that can jump immediately from its bat emcees to humans.” According to Peter Gotzsche with the Institute for Scientific Freedom: 11

“Their work focused on enhancing the ability of at-bat viruses to attack humen so as to' examine the emergence potential.’ In 2015, they created a fiction virus by taking the backbone of the SARS virus replacing its spike protein with one from another bat virus known as SHC0 14 -CoV. 12 This manufactured virus was able to infect a lab culture of cells from the human airways.

They wrote that scientific review boards might regard their study too risky to pursue but argued that it had the potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks. Nonetheless, the value of gain-of-function studies in preventing the COVID-1 9 pandemic was negative, as this research highly likely developed the pandemic.”

February 3: A Mandate to Control the Narrative Is Issued

Adding to the puzzle, COVID-1 9 inoculation producer Moderna, together with NIAID, moved mRNA coronavirus vaccine campaigners to Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on December 12, 2019 -- prior to the opening of the pandemic, raise significant red flags. 13 Meanwhile, Rixey’s research guided him to conclude: 14

“The Proximals were gathered by Farrar& Fauci explicitly to compare emerging rationales with what was known of Baric's work, the spectrum of experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

After the February 1 conference call, a February 3 assemble was held by Fauci, Droegemeier, Chris Hassell, elderly discipline adviser for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Business, and National Academies’ policy director Alexander Pope, during which the “group slapped the table on what the narrative was going to be -- not what the science indicated.” Rixey writes: 15

“Therefore, the signal was sent to all scientists that engaging the laboratories inceptions tilt intended career fatality( no establishment body ), no fund( via Fauci or Ross or Farrar ), no publication in the big 4 gazettes during the historic pandemic( NEJM, Science, The Lancet& Nature[ by virtue of their publishing of the tone-setting sections ]), no executive patronage for things like generic medicines, etc.”

Fauci Censors Public GOF Discourse He Called for in 2012

Fauci has long corroborated controversial GOF research, which he spoke about at a hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at the U.S. Senate, comprised April 26, 2012.16

That year he used to call open debate about GOF research and its risks, and a standstill was is available on U.S.-funded GOF research in October 2014, after a cord of concerning events, including book of controversial GOF studies and high-profile “incidents” at U.S. biocontainment laboratories, led to more than 300 scientists launching a petition calling for an end to gain-of-function investigate. 17

But that standstill was promoted by the NIH in December 2017,18 without any action of the public or the president/ representatives they elected. As Rixey greenbacks: 19

“The recent Congressional images by Fauci, however, have shown that he is willing to drag this fight out forever in defense of his gift, and numerous legislators are supportive to his plight.

Thus, it’s clear that better questions are needed to build the suitable level of awareness amongst the public to the full implications of Fauci’s concerted effort to prevent that same public discourse he claimed to support in 2012. ”

Fauci Should' Resign Immediately’

“The only proper action for Dr. Fauci to take at this point is to resign immediately, ” Rixey writes, “and apologizing for prioritizing the suppression of mortifying& extended conflicts of interest, double standards and political decisions masked as clang policy.”2 0

Along with his acquiescence, a retraction of “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” is called for, as “each of its five authors intentionally framed the COVID origin debate around' evidence’ and' facts’ that they couldn’t prove, and a finality of the agreed conclusions that the known details couldn’t justify, ” Rixey says. 21

Rixey compiled a index of 10 questions he conceives should be formally answered by Fauci. Among them are much-needed explanations for apparent subversion, selective inclusion, redactions, diverging narratives and secrecy, including: 22

When did you first learn of the existence of the furin fissure website within the genome of SARS-CoV-2?

Why were emails with special topics heading “humanized mice” redacted?

Why did the world’s leading virologists/ microbiologists and surface American/ U.K. officials refrain from releasing their knowledge of the existence of the FCS when they firstly learned of it?

“The truth, ” Rixey says, “ ... is that our generation’s most prominent infectious disease expert is gaslighting our fellow citizens of "the two countries " he swore an oath to protect.”2 3

Read more: articles.mercola.com

18Apr/210

Avoiding a climate culture war: How can the UK maintain broad support for net zero action?

Avoiding a climate culture war: How can the UK maintain broad support for net zero action?

Difficult policy questions lie ahead that could sow grains of partition- but could a 'patriotic sense of national mission' help smooth the path to net zero releases?

Just as the UK perceives itself extending the world's efforts to set out on an epoch-defining economic transition to a net zero economy, the country - from both a political and cultural standpoint - has rarely felt more divided.

The UK is already five years in to a period of significant constitutional agitation, political indecision, and economic headwinds, first from Brexit and then from the coronavirus crisis. These historic challenges, coupled with the sluggish productivity and glaring inequalities that have come to define the 13 times since the global financial crisis, have reshaped age-old political devotions and supported the foundations for the purposes of an escalating culture combat that identifies political and media rivals scrap topics such as statutes, mask-wearing, political correctness, and flag-waving.

Against this volatile backdrop, the political consensus on the need for climate action has, perhaps suprisingly, been generally maintained. Extinction Rebellion's approach to protest and Greta Thunberg's interventions may not have secured universal approval, but political parties across the spectrum still concur with their central meaning - that climate change is an emergency that requires urgent and sustained action. Prime Minister Boris Johnson may have been willing to stoke the culture war on multiple breasts, but when it comes to climate change he has attacked the consensus and sought to position climate action as a central board of his agenda. Meanwhile, the private sector organizations remains more committed than ever to accelerating the net zero transition.

However, one only has to look across The Pond to America to see the constant hazard of climate change and the net zero agenda slipping into the racial war countenance quarry, where striking divisions between the Republican and Democratic gatherings have long held back policy progress. Is there a danger of the same happening here in the UK - of net zero becoming a brand-new territory in increasingly fraught culture combat? For Tim Lord, senior companion at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, if political leaders prove self-complacent - if they think it could never happen here - the health risks is a very real one.

"Difficult policy decisions lie ahead which will directly affect the way people live and work, and if they aren't designed and communicated in the right way then politicians gamble leaving the field open for climate change to become a divisive party-political issue, and even weaponised as the next culture fighting, " he alerts. "Support for net zero can be maintained - but action is needed to build and communicate a positive lawsuit for act which reverberates across the political spectrum."

Lord, who has almost 20 years' suffer working on environment, vigor, and industrial program - most recently as superintendent of the UK government's decarbonisation strategy - has co-authored new research for the Institute which today seeks to address some of the crucial political questions circumventing the next stage of the UK's net zero modulation, which will increasingly necessary the direct participation and subsidize of the British public.

Fortunately, the research begins by arguing the present situation is a good one as far as public and political expressed support for net zero is concerned. Assessing various sources of public polling on atmosphere topics in the last decades, including regular study by the Pew Research Centre and the UK government's own Public Attitudes Tracker examinations, it concludes expressed concerns about climate change is at record levels. Not simply that, but unlike after the global financial crisis in 2007 -0 8, that concern has been sustained despite the chao of Covid-1 9. Climate change is now a major issue at the ballot box and, contrary to some media preconceptions, it is not just an issue for certain subsets of voters either, but is of growing concern across all age groups, income levels, and urban and rural areas of the country, according to the report.

In short-lived, politicians can be confident there currently exists strong and sustained desire for climate act right across the board. "Climate change is here to stay as a political issue, " the report states.

Yet that is far from the whole picture. To date, life-styles have been broadly unaffected by decarbonisation that has witnessed the UK cut its emissions in half since 1990. But as anyone in the green economy knows, the second half of that jaunt promises to be much harder, involving tough political choices that instantly alter the public through changes to their transport, nutritions, and home heating. Meanwhile, there are fractures beginning to show in the broad coalition in support of the net zero mission, which in many ways follow the same dividing lines as those between 'Leave' and 'Remain' supporters that has defined British politics since the EU referendum in 2016. Polling indicates socially conservative voters tend to be much less supportive of climate action than more socially liberal voters, and that divide increasingly manifests the bases of the two main political parties in the UK.

Recent debates bordering plans to build the UK's firstly coal pit in 30 years require a case in point. While environmental campaigners and the Labour Party have argued the project will add to greenhouse gas emissions and undermine the UK's climate leadership credentials in the run up to COP2 6, some Conservative MPs have vocally argued that the pit is crucial for jobs and growth in the area. Against this backdrop, the government has flip-flopped on the issue, first tacitly supporting the project, and now launching its examination of the controversial plans.

As such, today's report argues that in order to ensure a long-term political alignment of support for the net zero transition commanders across the political range will need to work hard to maintain it. "Getting this right - developing a unifying politics of the environmental issues that speaks to the concerns of the large bulk of the electorate - is perhaps the most important long-term political challenge of our time, " it states.

For its part, the authorities concerned appears to be considering these risks. Earlier this month two cases of handiwork commissioned by government departments for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy( BEIS) be issued, one report on net zero public action and participation by Cardiff University's Dr Christina Demski and another which solicited public beliefs on net zero that was carried out by Newgate Research and the University of Cambridge. Both universally support the view that, over the coming decade and beyond, the public may be required to far more directly involved in the net zero modulation than they have been so far, which will in turn necessitate brand-new date approaches from politicians and businesses to avoid pushback and division.

Demski's report warns of a lack of public awareness about many of the challenges required to meet net zero, and warns that high levels of concern about climate change do not undoubtedly translate into committed support for the types of changes that may be required. As a outcome her analysis warns that "overall public date and participation may have the potential to impact the tempo of transmission, cost and success of net zero delivery".

The Newgate and University of Cambridge work, meanwhile, involved a total of 93 participants from across the UK in online research, which sought to identify the easiest and toughest challenges for delivering decarbonisation, as well as how best to engage people with net zero programs. The two most contentious policy areas, it knew, were around vehicle possession and nutritions, with a clear desire among some groups to maintain freedom over choice over how and when they buy a private automobile or feed meat and dairy. Yet such research also emphasized "very limited awareness" among the public of possibilities policies that could be looked at in the course of the year in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.

"Ultimately people wanted net zero to be achieved in ways which respected individual choice and promoted wellbeing, which were seen to be fair in their distributional significance, and which did not limit interpersonal relationships or result in the widening of social prejudices, " it concluded.

Clearly, participation with the public that openly addresses the new challenges, payments, and modifies ahead in the drive to net zero must be at the top of the agenda for the UK government's environment policy, taking the baton from where exercises such as the recent citizens' Climate Assembly UK began.

To do that, Lord today says lessons must be learned from the fallout of the Brexit referendum so as to avoid further polarisation and department on climate act. In particular, he points to the Remain campaign's focus on the economic assertions for EU membership, while the Leave campaign opted for a more values-driven campaigning approach that was arguably more effective. "Similarly now[ with net zero ], you have to think about how are we frisking to a really wide prepare of values, so we're not just talking about the 'just transition' and economic right, we're not just talking about the moral disagreement for atmosphere activity, " he tells BusinessGreen. "I wouldn't dismiss either of those arguments, as they're both important, but they're not going to resonate with a wide enough group of voters for the kind of action that is needed for net zero to be politically sustainable."

Consequently, his report indicates political leaders need to not only strengthen voters' understanding of what net zero actually means for them, but pattern and communicate public policies that appeal to voters with different quality across the growing divide. It also sets out how fears that the transition could adversely affect jobs and communities must also be addressed head on, with clear assurances from political leaders that the mistakes of the past have been learned after the shuttering of industry in the 1980 s without the financing and transitional strategy that could have alleviated much of the resulting economic agony and social dislocation. And it points to the fact that moral and economic controversies for environment action are not enough on their own - instead a "patriotic sense of national mission" should be provoked which places emphasis on regional ownership of climate solutions and ensures that green growth and jobs are delivered "in a way that is meaningful and visible".

Yet bringing patriotism into the realm of climate act also arguably views its own jeopardies. As antagonisms between the UK and EU over AstraZeneca's Covid-1 9 inoculation roll out reveals, national grandstanding can serve to undermine much-needed international cooperation on crisis of world-wide proportions.

Lord, nonetheless, contends a constructive patriotism has a role to play. "Firstly I think what that's really about is climate change being a polity rather than a politics of separation, because patriotism can be about requiring better communities, healthier life-styles and better places, etc, " he says. "And furthermore, a hasten to the top on decarbonisation is undoubtedly a good thing. Some countries have different challenges and strongs in terms of getting to net zero. A patriotic framing of this that introduces a sense of national duty and shared endeavour can be really positive for the orders of the day. The other thing I'd say is that if parties was concerned at excessive patriotism, then a much bigger concern for me would be a world where we haven't dealt with climate change, and what that will do in terms of world-wide geopolitics. Because the disruption to supply chains and some of the unmanaged affects, I see, will be very risky from a political perspective."

As an example for businesses, he foreground General Motors' recent electric vehicle push, which included a major advertising campaign pioneered by Hollywood comedian Will Ferrell that was screened to big audiences during the US Super Bowl. The advert light-heartedly calls for Americans to build driving EVs part of a patriotic mission to catch up with Norway, one of the world leaders on artillery vehicle approval. Interestingly, the ad does not once mention the words 'climate change'.

"I assume that's because GM thinks that is the most effective message for purchasers, and it's an assertion around patriotism, and around the fact that these products are better than the high-pitched carbon or unsustainable alternative, " Lord memoranda. "I think there's a really interesting lesson, or at least a extent of reflection, in there for businesses thinking about how to sell themselves to consumers."

Whether carefully-framed patriotism and national contender is the answer to avoiding a climate culture war and still further political fraction remains to be determined, but it is a compelling argument that - certainly in the case of Boris Johnson's 'world leading' claims and GM's TV adverts - is clearly already being tested out by both politicians and top businesses.

Whatever the answer, with tougher decarbonisation challenges onward, the wider public cannot be excluded from the net zero conversation for long, and ensuring unity of support for climate action is almost certain to become one of the most important missions for policymakers over the next decade. Indeed, the success of the entire net zero project relies upon it.

Read more: businessgreen.com

9Apr/210

In Uzbekistan, public-private partnerships are the engine driving infrastructure development

Uzbekistan is undertaking an ambitious program to develop its infrastructure with public private partnerships playing a key role.

Language

English

A key theme of Uzbekistan’s affecting economic resuscitation since 2017 has been to accelerate infrastructure development through private sector involvement. This led to an grandiose public-private partnership platform that included elapsing the first Public-Private Partnership( PPP) Law, creating a dedicated PPP agency, and asking argument agencies to promote PPPs for key projects.

In 2021 more than 40 large and medium assignments expending PPP are expected to commence, sending an unequivocal signal to government agencies and the international market that PPPs are here to stay. The platform achieved various milestones in 2020. In January 2021, a long-awaited amendment to the PPP Law was approved and signed. The first deals prompted by the program are coming to close, paving the acces for more in sectors including renewable energy, state, and transport.

The newly amended PPP Law is a product of year-long dialogue between the government and market participants, international advisors, and change finance institutions. It is based on international market standards for a fast-growing economy and focuses on facilitating foreign investment, including through a streamlined and translucent tender process, balanced foreign exchange risk protection, and international arbitration. This is providing momentum for forays into new spheres, the creation of contract templates, and construct PPP capacity to deliver more projections in years to come.

Through bold policies and project delivery, Uzbekistan can forge a world-class PPP program that delivers the infrastructure needed for continued strong economic growing.

The PPP program is at a pivotal point, a confirmed idea ready to be expanded and brought to market. Sustainability, remit, and magnitude are the key themes. Having wreaked alongside key policymakers and project enablers in authority since the program’s inception, we can identify six ranges needing policy courtesy in 2021.

Integrate PPPs at a national infrastructure planning position. PPP is a procurement tool and should be viewed as one of many possible ways for government to achieve infrastructure objectives. To construct PPPs part of the overall planning mechanism, a few steps need to be taken. First, building capacities at path agencies to generate interest and awareness of PPPs and to know when to apply them. A key gradation is to develop an appreciation for whole-of-life costing, which for many Uzbek line agencies is a departure from traditional costing. Second, a political framework and project screening mechanism to decide when a project should be done as a PPP, including a consistent value-for-money methodology utilized uniformly. Third, training at the central planning organization are responsible for ensuring that the mechanisms are properly applied.

Carefully expand use of accessibility pays. Availability payment-based PPPs are well accepted worldwide, and several sectors such as renewable power generation and social infrastructure have be able to rely them. The need to create a scalable organization for availability payment-based jobs is exacerbated by the pandemic’s impact particularly on transport infrastructure, with fewer bidders and lenders willing to take busines threat. Enterprises should recognize the value of this modality, peculiarly its focus on quality of operations and service delivery. They should also implement a structure to monitor and manage its fiscal indebtedness in the medium term, and as squander of accessibility payments scales up.

Establish a project development store. Project preparation is one of the keys to successful PPP implementation, but the costs of hiring specialist consultants to provide feasibility assessments and transaction advisory can be prohibitive for government agencies. A replenishable project development money would allow the government to retain event advisors to prepare and tender the project, refunded through success fees from the win bidder. It would scale up the program by enabling a larger number of projects to be brought to market at once, and allow faster hiring of consultants through a body of business transaction advisors that can be drawn on at any time.

Plan for post-close project implementation. While achieving financial close on a project is exciting, for the “newlywed” public and private partners this is just the beginning of a multi-decade concession period. It is critical for the public partner to set up a well-staffed project monitoring measurement, develop the procedures and manuals on how to fulfill its role as public partner, and build the internal ability for this new role. Agency which currently have jobs in tender should start thinking about their project now, with the help of their development partners.

Improve regional money liquidity and enable local banks to participate in PPPs. Uzbekistan suffers from low-grade local currency liquidity for infrastructure projects mainly because of a inconsistency between the tenor of a project finance loan and local banks’ deposit base. To alleviate this, the government could use a strategy that has proven effective in Bangladesh: create a non-bank financial middleman profited by government and/ or other interested investors able to provide neighbourhood currency access to finance.

Bring Uzbekistan to the world. With the amended law progressed, various projects in tender, and a robust grapevine of future jobs , now is the time to promote Uzbekistan’s PPP program globally. With major meetings moving online, opportunities is more important than ever. International media coverage should be maximized. As tenders for some of ADB’s recent activities have shown, extending corporations from all over the world are interested in bidding for projects across multiple sectors.

Uzbekistan’s rapid fiscal blooming has opened space for ADB to enhance its PPP support. We’ve helped to build capacity at 16 government agencies, and advised the authorities concerned on the PPP law amendment and different policy. Our transaction advisory support across 5 sectors aims to not only close projections but develop contract templates for future usage. To improve project finance in early copes, "were working with" public sector clients to form imaginative utilization of monetary makes such as neighbourhood currency liquidity or sovereign guarantees.

A programmatic and interconnected coming is necessary: Institutional development has to be driven by broad based capacity building, legislative changes should be based on lessons learned from business, and the first events will require development bank financing.

Uzbekistan has made a promising start towards integrating PPPs as a valuable tool in its infrastructure development agenda. Through bold policies and project delivery, Uzbekistan can forge a world-class PPP program that delivers the infrastructure was required for continued strong economic growth.

amended ppp law, international market standards, first public-private partnership, public-private partnership program, transparent tender process, building ppp capacity, private sector participation, development finance institutions, dedicated ppp agency, exchange risk protection, local currency liquidity, project development fund, Uzbekistan, project, project finance, ppp program, local banks, government agencies, public partner, development bank financingPratish HaladyEnrico PinaliCountries: UzbekistanArticle

Read more: blogs.adb.org

22Mar/210

WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Gates and GAVI

OK tribes, today you are in for a real treat. We have presented many of the fragments previously, but this will help articulated them in the proper position. That is the phase we are in now. We have the facts of the case, we just need to understand what they mean and read them properly.

This is a really important essay. It catalyzed my understanding of what the heck is going on. The knowledge are obvious; the entire response to the world-wide pandemic was facilitated by the World Health Organization. Their recommendations were followed lock-step by virtually every government on Earth.

No one will quarrel this point. The next data point is: Who controls the WHO? Some will dispute this, but the evidence presented is pretty clear and solid. It is Bill Gates, who became the WHO’s biggest funder when then-President Trump removed U.S. endorsement last year.

What does Gates have to benefit from controlling the WHO? How about the best investment he ever compiled, with countless tens of billions of dollars operating through his “nonprofit” GAVI Vaccine Alliance? The maniacal smothering and censoring of any inexpensive natural alternative for COVID-1 9 establishes excellent smell now.

These natural therapies, nebulized hydrogen peroxide being the best example, would be serious event for the inoculations. If everyone knew that these remedies were readily available, highly effective and practically free, who would risk their being for a vaccine? Virtually no one. It all induces excellent sense.

With that framework, experience the information our squad has compiled that expands on this general concept. Every day we are putting the parts of the puzzle together, and the more slice we fit together, the sooner you will see "the worlds biggest" depict. More to come in the very near future.

WHO Insider Speaks Out

In July 2020, four German attorneys founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee( Ausserparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1 ). 2,3 In the video above, the founding members, led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, 4 interviews Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D ., a WHO insider, about what she discovered about Bill Gates and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

Stuckelberger has served as deputy director of the Swiss national program of aging since the 1990 s, and is the president of the WHO-funded Geneva International Network on Ageing.

According to her bio, 5 she “is an internationally recognized professional on issues relevant to evaluate scientific research for policymakers, in particular in health and invention assessment, pandemic and emergency handling training courses and in optimizing individual and population health and well-being.”

She’s too a published scribe, with a dozen records to her recognition, as well as more than 180 scientific articles, plan newspapers and governmental and international reports. Stuckelberger points out that much of the research done was and still is highly politicized and principally done to support and apologize political decisions.

For the past 20 times, since 2000, she’s been involved with public health at the WHO, and was part of their research ethics committee for four years. In 2009, she got involved with the WHO’s international state regulations.

Stuckelberger notes that the whole purpose of WHO’s international state regulations is to prepare member states to be ready for a pandemic, to be able to is not simply prevent outbreaks but likewise answer swiftly when an eruption results. However, the WHO has actually been actively preventing and subverting this pandemic preparedness schooling.

The Center of Corruption

According to Stuckelberger, Switzerland is at the heart of the bribery, largely thanks to it being the headquarters for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by Bill Gates. In 2009, the GAVI Alliance was recognized as an international academy and granted total blanket immunity. 6

As illustrated by Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D ., one of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee representatives, GAVI has “qualified diplomatic immunity, ” which is odd, considering the organization has no political superpower that they are able to authorize diplomatic immunity. Odder still is that GAVI’s immunity clauses go beyond even that of diplomats. GAVI’s exemption covers all aspects of booking, including criminal business dealings.

GAVI is a nongovernmental organization that is allowed to operate without any taxes, although we are having total exemption for anything they do wrong.

“They can do whatever they require, ” Stuckelberger says, without repercussions. The police, for example, are barred from conducting an investigation and mustering exhibit if GAVI were to be implicated in a criminal investigation. “It’s shocking, ” she says. GAVI is also completely tax exempt, which Stuckelberger memo is “very strange.”

Essentially, GAVI is a nongovernmental organization( NGO) that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they done wrong, voluntarily or otherwise. This is rather unprecedented, and raises a whole legion of questions. It’s particularly disturbing in light of evidence Stuckelberger claims to have found showing that GAVI is “directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO.”

Furthermore, documents cited by Stuckelberger show the WHO has assumed what is tantamount to autocratic influence over around the world. The director general has the sole ability to build decisions -- including decisions about which tests or pandemic medications to use -- that all member states must then obey.

The Nation-State of Gates

What’s more, Stuckelberger have found that, in 2017, Gates actually requested to be part of the WHO’s exec council -- like all states members -- ostensibly because he returns them so much money. Indeed, his funding surpasses that of many individual member states.

Like Stuckelberger says, this is truly incredible -- the relevant recommendations that a single serviceman would have the same dominance and force over the WHO as that of an entire nation. It’s a audaciou dominance grab, to say the least. While there’s no proof that Gates was ever officially conceded the status of a member state, one wonders whether he doesn’t have it unofficially.

One thing that promotes Stuckelberger’s suspicion is the fact that Swissmedic, the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland, has entered into a three-way contract agreement with Gates and the WHO. “This is abnormal, ” she says.

Essentially, in summary, it appears that when he did not get voted in as a one-man society position, Gates made three-party contracts with member states and the WHO, virtually locating him on equality with the WHO. As mentioned earlier, whatever the general manager of the WHO says, croaks. They’ve effectively turned world-wide health security into a totalitarianism.

The question is, is Gates the real power behind the curtain? Does he tell the head general what to do? When you looked at over the last year, it seems Gates has often been the first to announce what the world needs to do to address the pandemic, and then the WHO comes out with an identical sense, which is then parroted by world leaders, more or less verbatim.

As pointed out by Fuellmich, it’s becoming clear that numerous private-public partnerships have been hijacked by the private surface -- and they’re immune from obligation. “This has get to stop, ” he says.

A complete review and overhaul of the United Commonwealth, which supported the WHO, is also required as the U.N. has done nothing to prevent or draw rein undemocratic and illegal work. As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to reconsider whether we even need them.

Changed Definition of Pandemic Allowed Health Dictatorship

In the interrogation, they too highlight the WHO’s role in settled the stage for a world health dictatorship by changing the interpretation of “pandemic.” The WHO’s original definition, pre-2 009, of a pandemic was: 7,8

" ... when a new influenza virus looms against which the human population has no immunity, ensuing in several, simultaneous outbreaks worldwide with big numbers of deaths and illness.”

The key segment of that description is “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” This definition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

The change was a simple but substantial one: They simply removed the severity and high-pitched death criteria, leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”9 This substitution in description is why COVID-1 9 was and still is promoted as a pandemic even though it, at no time, has already caused any excess fatality. 10,11, 12

We now have plenty of data showing the lethality of COVID-1 9 is on par with the seasonal flu. 13,14, 15,16, 17 It may be different in calls of indications and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same. Yet we’re told the price we must all pay to keep ourselves and others safe from this virus is the relinquishing of our civil and immunities.

In short, by removing the criteria of severe illness motiving high-pitched morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and technocratic "worlds leaders" have had the opportunity to bamboozle the global population into giving up our lives and supports.

WHO Rewrites Science by Changing Definition of Herd Immunity

The WHO has also radically altered the definitions contained in “herd immunity.” Herd immunity occur when enough beings acquire exemption to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the amount prone is low-grade enough to prevent epidemic raise, flock exemption is said to have been reached.

Prior to the preamble of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via revelation to and recuperation from an infectious disease. Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired exemption that comes from prior illness, but likewise the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.

However, in October 2020, the WHO upended discipline as we know it, revising this well-established concept in an Orwellian move that altogether removes natural illnes from the equation.

As late as June 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd exemption, positioned on one of their COVID-1 9 Q& A pages, was in line with the widely-accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it primarily said: 18

“Herd immunity is the incidental protection against an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

The revised definition of herd immunity, which appeared in October 2020, read as follows: 19

“'Herd immunity’, also known as' population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting beings from a virus , not by uncover them to it.

Vaccines study our immune systems to create proteins that defend ailment, known as' antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but -- crucially -- vaccines work without performing us sick.

Vaccinated people shall be protected against coming the disease in question and passing it on, separating any series of transfer. With herd immunity, the vast majority of local populations are vaccinated, lower their overall sum of virus able to spread in the whole population.”

After public -- and no doubt embarrassing -- backfire, the WHO reviewed its definition again December 31, 2020, to again include the mention of natural infection, while still emphasizing vaccine-acquired immunity. It now predicts: 20

“'Herd immunity', also known as 'population exemption, ' is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous illnes.

WHO supportings achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination , not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the person, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

Herd immunity against COVID-1 9 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination , not by display them to the pathogen that causes the disease."

WHO’s Recommendation of PCR Test' Intentionally Criminal’

Stuckelberger also scandalizes the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee by pointing out that twice -- December 7, 2020,21, 22 and January 13, 202123 -- the WHO published medical notifies for PCR testing, warning that use of high cycle thresholds( CT) will create high rates of inaccurate positives, that the CT importance should be reported to the health care provider and that research decisions be considered in combination with clinical observances, health history and other epidemiological information.

Yet since the beginning of the pandemic, it has pushed PCR testing as the best way to detect and diagnose infection. This, she says, establishes it intentionally criminal. The January 13, 202124,25 medical produce alarm was, incidentally, posted online January 20, 2021, mere hours after Joe Biden’s kickoff as the President of the United Commonwealth.

In this alert, the WHO stressed that the “CT needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral consignment, ” and that “Where test makes do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested.”

It likewise reminds users that “disease prevalence adapts the predictive evaluate of test outcomes, ” so that “as malady prevalence reduces, the risk of false positive increases.” The alert goes on to explain: 26

“This means that the probability that a person who has a positive ensue( SARS-CoV-2 spotted) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 abridges as prevalence weakens, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, healthcare systems providers must consider any result in combination with going of sampling, specimen kind, assay specifics, clinical observations, case autobiography, strengthened status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

Taking a patient’s symptoms into account and using a scientifically valid CT counting should have been routine practice from the beginning. It only didn’t fit the geopolitical narrative. Since the beginnings of the pandemic, the WHO has recommended exerting a CT of 45,27, 28,29 which guarantees an enormous number of false positives, and therefore “cases.” This alone is how they impeded the pandemic fearmongering running.

The technical consensus has so far been that anything over 35 CTs makes the PCR experiment useless, 30,31, 32 as the accuracy will be a measly 3% -- 97% are false positives. 33 By ultimately recommending lower CTs and more precise criteria for diagnosis, the WHO engineered an assured result to the caseload at a hoped age. Coincidentally, the next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced he would rehabilitate the U.S.’ financial support for the WHO. 34

Time to Position an Culminate to the Global Health Mafia

The WHO was created as a specialized agency of the U.N ., established in 1948 to further international cooperation for purposes of improved public health conditions. It was given a broad mandate under its constitution to promote the attainment of “the highest possible position of health” by all peoples.

It is now beyond dispute that the WHO is beyond settlement. Because of its funding -- a huge portion of which comes from the “one-man nation-state of Gates” -- it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO dishes corporate masters and through its dictatorial dominances is basically destroying , not improving, the health of the world.

In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly( PACE) questioned a report3 5 on the WHO’s handling of the 2009 pandemic of romance influenza A( H1N1 ), which included the recommendation to use a fast-tracked vaccine that dissolved up generating disability and death in different areas of the world.

PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the WHO, EU health agencies and national governments contributed significantly to a debris of large sums of public fund, and unjustified scares and dreads about the health risks faced by the European public.”3 6

Specifically, PACE noticed “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was enormously overrated by WHO, ” and that the remedy industry had forced the organization’s decision-making -- specific claims repetition by other examiners as well. 37,38, 39,40, 41

The Assembly made a number of recommendations, including greater transparency, better governance of public health, safeguards against unwarranted force by vested interest, public funding of independent study, and final but not least, for the media to “avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain.”4 2

None of those recommendations are complied with and, if something, the WHO’s mismanagement of public health, thanks to private-public partnerships with NGOs such as GAVI, has only degenerated. Other reports, two be made available in 201543,44 and one in 2017,45 also highlighted the WHO’s failures and shortfall of relevant leader during the 2013 through 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

While the WHO is recognized as being uniquely suited to carry out key functions necessary in a global pandemic, experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Harvard Global Health Institute, have pointed out, year ago, that the WHO has eroded so much trust that progressive reforms would be required before it can assume an authoritative role.

Yet here we are, still, and no reforms ever has just taken place. Instead, the fraud festered and metastasized, and the WHO turned into a supremacy hub for the technocratic late state that seeks to usurp dominance and oversight matters over all nations.

As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to take a long hard-handed look at the WHO and the U.N ., and decide whether they’re even worth saving. At naked minimum, the disproportionate influence by private vested interests, disguised as NGOs such as GAVI, is required to be thoroughly investigated and routed out.

Read more: articles.mercola.com

8Mar/210

Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free

On December 22, 2020, a nonprofit limited company based in Great Britain that calls itself the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)1,2,3 published a report titled "The Anti-Vaxx Playbook."4

It contains false and misleading information about the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, which was sponsored by the 39-year-old U.S. nonprofit educational charity the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), and held online in October 2020. Promotion of the CCDH report resulted in the spreading of fake news and misinformation by mainline media outlets in Great Britain and the U.S.5,6,7,8,9

NVIC's pay-for-view digital conference10 was transparently open to the public and featured presentations by 51 speakers from the U.S. and other countries discussing vaccine science, public health policy and law, informed consent and civil liberties.

Dedicated to "Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century," the conference was made available on February 2, 2021 for free viewing online. Go to NVIC.org11 to access the conference website and watch all of the presentations.

CCDH Misinformation Campaign Designed to Discredit, Destroy NVIC

Influence Watch, which monitors individuals and groups that influence12 public policy, describes CCDH as a "London-based advocacy group that targets accused 'hate groups' and individuals for de-platforming campaigns to remove them from major social media outlets" and "has ties to the left-wing British Labour Party and British left-progressivism."13

The anonymously funded CCDH also has an office in Washington, D.C. and the defamatory publicity campaign created in December 2020 was designed to not only discredit NVIC's four-decade public record of working within the U.S. democratic system to secure vaccine safety and informed consent protections in public health policies and laws, but to destroy our small charity.

The misinformation campaign was spearheaded by the CEO of CCDH, who is a political operative14 personally affiliated with Great Britain's socialist Labour Party.15,16,17

The report deceived readers by describing NVIC's 2020 conference as a meeting "recently held in private over three days," which implied secrecy,18 even though the event was transparently open to the public just like the four previous vaccination conferences NVIC hosted in 1997, 2000, 2002 and 2009.19

One British tabloid read the report and described NVIC's public conference as a "private conference call" where "secret plans" were plotted to "launch the largest ever misinformation campaign about vaccines."20

Last summer, CCDH published their first report alleging that Big Tech companies operating social media platforms make big profits by allowing individuals and organizations criticizing vaccine science, policy and law to message on their platforms,21 and should take stronger action to censor online public conversations about vaccination that do not conform with the "scientific consensus that vaccines are safe."22,23

That July 2020 report was promoted by mainline media outlets in Britain24,25,26,27 and the U.S.28 However, CCDH's report published five months later in December 2020, which created fake news and misinformation about NVIC's conference, contained even more inflammatory rhetoric.

It demonized those who criticize vaccine safety as "malignant actors,"29 and CCDH demanded that companies and governments virtually eliminate individuals or groups publishing information online that fails to align with government and industry narratives about vaccination and public health policy.

In that report, CCDH ordered Big Tech companies and governments to censor and punish dissenters, charging that "anything less than the dismantling of these individuals' profiles, pages and groups and permanent denial of service, now they know what is happening, is willing acquiescence."30

On January 18, 2021, the anonymously funded CCDH once again publicly attacked the National Vaccine Information Center, this time for applying for a U.S. Paycheck Protection Program loan to secure the continued employment of NVIC's 21 workers during massive nationwide unemployment caused by lockdowns.

The British nonprofit company appeared to suggest that the U.S. government should not have been viewpoint-neutral in granting relief loans, but should have applied an ideological litmus test to NVIC's loan request that was made to retain employees during catastrophic economic hardship caused by lockdowns that have affected donations to charities.31

CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed said, "Lending money to these organizations so they can prosper is a sickening use of taxpayer money."32 Once again, mainline media outlets in Britain and the U.S. widely promoted CCDH's allegations.33,34,35,36,37

Six months of orchestrated public attacks on NVIC by CCDH have generated hate mail to our small charity, which was founded and has been led by parents of vaccine-injured children for four decades.38

Strong Freedom of Dissent History in US

I was born into a post-World War II generation in the U.S., a generation known for challenging the status quo and exercising the right to dissent, which is protected under the U.S. Constitution.39

Whether it was advocating for the right to listen to rock 'n' roll and joining antinuclear protests in the 1950s,40,41 or marching in support of civil rights and opposing an undeclared war in Asia in the 1960s,42,43 or women fighting for equal opportunity and pay and consumer activists working for environmental protection and car safety laws in the 1970s,44,45,46,47 or mothers protesting against drunk drivers48 and choosing a drug-free birth and breastfeeding for their babies in the 1980s,49,50 the baby boomer generation has been known for exercising freedom of thought and speech. 

Contentious social, political and health issues of the 20th century sparked heated debates on college campuses,51 where students could still explore, critique and openly search for truth, and in mainline newspapers, magazines and radio and television stations, where point/counterpoint examination of controversial topics was the hallmark of good journalism because public debate is the hallmark of free speech.

The America where I grew up in the mid-20th century was a beacon of hope for people living behind the Iron Curtain52 and in other totalitarian or authoritarian societies,53 where exercise of freedom of thought, speech and conscience and the right to dissent and peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances had been eliminated, where people had been turned into silent indentured servants working to serve a small ruling class in control of the state.54

Statists, who believe that economic control and planning must be in the hands of a highly centralized government,55 are always afraid of the truth, afraid that people armed with knowledge will act together to challenge control of the state by a powerful and privileged few.

Without Debate, Without Criticism 'No Republic Can Survive'

I was in junior high school when President John F. Kennedy addressed the American Newspaper Publishers Association in 1961. He said:56

"Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply 'give the public what it wants' — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion."

He closed with these words:

"So it is to the printing press — to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news — that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

That speech given 60 years ago was a ringing endorsement for freedom of the press. Yet, in the 21st century, it is becoming clear that there are political operatives and corporations seeking to censor freedom of thought and speech by citizen journalists publishing analysis and perspective on the worldwide web, an electronic communications network that has been the world's biggest forum for free speech over the past quarter century.57,58

Right to Dissent, Freedom of Speech Under Assault in America

The right to dissent59 and exercise freedom of thought, speech and conscience60 is under assault in America,61 even though these cherished civil liberties are codified into the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. And civil liberties are under assault internationally in other nations with representative democracies, as well.62

Today, political operatives are pressuring government, media corporations and other institutions to eliminate freedom of speech, especially public conversations about vaccine science, policy and law.63,64,65

Spirited public debate about vaccine safety and mandatory vaccination laws has been going on for more than two centuries.66,67 What is the justification for censoring that public conversation now and punishing those who engage in it with economic and social sanctions?68,69

And if the public conversation about vaccination and health can be censored, what topic will be the next one put on the "no fly" list?70,71

NVIC: Working to Reform Vaccine Policy and Law for Decades

I am a co-founder and president of the highly rated nonprofit educational charity established in 1982 and known today as the National Vaccine Information Center.72,73 Our mission is to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education. NVIC does not make vaccine use recommendations. We advocate for the human and legal right to make informed and voluntary decisions about vaccination without being coerced or punished for the decision made.74

Our not-for-profit charitable organization was established for one reason: We were mothers and fathers of children brain injured by the highly reactive pertussis vaccine in the DPT shot and we wanted a safer pertussis vaccine to replace the one that had hurt our children. That goal was accomplished after 14 years of consumer advocacy when a less reactive acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine was licensed for babies in the U.S. in 1996.75

We also wanted parents to have access to accurate and full information about the risks and complications of both diseases and vaccines before children are vaccinated, so parents and pediatricians could work together to identify those children who are more susceptible to vaccine reactions and protect their health.

That is why we worked with Congress to secure vaccine safety informing, recording, reporting and research provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a law in which the U.S. government officially acknowledged for the first time that vaccine safety should be made a national priority because federally licensed and recommended and state mandated childhood vaccines can and do cause permanent injuries and even death for some children.76,77,78

We are not all the same. We do not all react the same way to pharmaceutical products,79,80,81 which is why our organization has strongly supported research into genetic, epigenetic, environmental and other risk factors that make some individuals more susceptible to adverse responses to vaccination.82,83

We believe every life is important, and that the lives of those harmed by vaccines and infectious diseases should be equally valued and protected.

We believe that consumer advocacy has and should continue to play an active role in holding pharmaceutical companies and government agencies accountable for vaccine product safety, and we are dedicated to working responsibly within the democratic system of this Constitutional Republic to make health policy and law safer and more effective for everyone.84,85,86

Since 1988, I and other NVIC representatives have served as consumer members of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, FDA Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, Vaccine Policy Analysis Collaborative and other federal and state public engagement projects discussing vaccine science, policy and law issues with vaccine developers, federal and state health officials, medical trade and pharmaceutical industry representatives, and members of other nonprofit organizations.87,88,89

My 22 years of service as a consumer member on federal advisory committees and public engagement projects includes four years as a member of the Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Forum at the National Academy of Science, where I helped to coordinate public workshops on vaccine science, policy and law issues90 and was an editor for the report on Risk Communication and Vaccination published by the National Academy Press. That report importantly stated:91

"The goal that all parties share regarding vaccine risk communication should be informed decision making. Consent for vaccination is truly 'informed' when the members of the public know the risks and benefits and make voluntary decisions.

The discussion of mandatory vaccination at the workshop suggested that it may interfere with informed consent and may damage trust and deter effective communication, and thus needs to be carefully weighed against its benefits."

We believe the human right to freedom of thought, speech and conscience should be respected, not devalued. As public health regulations and laws are being created during the coronavirus pandemic to restrict or eliminate civil liberties,92 we should be encouraging people to have civil conversations about vaccination, health and autonomy. Americans should be welcomed by legislators to participate in — not be shut out of — the democratic law making process.93

When people feel disenfranchised and believe that those in power do not care about their lives or the lives of their children, that is when trust in government is lost and people let fear, anger and despair control their actions. Empowering people with knowledge and the hope they can help effect meaningful change if they do it in a rational and constructive way has always been one of NVIC's guiding principles.94

Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination Features Principled, Courageous Speakers

I want to thank the generous sponsors and attendees of the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination: Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century, who helped to make it financially possible for NVIC to host a virtual conference last fall.95

The conference had been scheduled for two years to be held in October 2020 in a hotel in the Washington, D.C. area. When travel and social distancing restrictions were enacted in the spring of 2020, we had to make a choice between canceling the conference or pivoting to a pay-for-view online public conference.

We chose to hold the conference online because we knew that the controversial issues being debated in the public square this year needed a public forum where well-anchored information and perspective could be presented.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the more than two dozen principled and courageous scientists, physicians, holistic health professionals, authors, attorneys, faith leaders, parents of vaccine injured children and civil and human rights activists, who represent diverse areas of expertise and participated in our conference.96

NVIC Will Not Abandon Our Mission

No matter how many political operatives, corporations and institutions threaten and try to discredit NVIC and our work in order to silence us, we will not abandon our 40-year mission dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and defending the ethical principle of informed consent. We are moving forward with faith and resolve that we can secure a future for America that protects health and autonomy in the 21st century.

Because we know that if the state can tag, track down and force individuals against their will to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individuals' freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

Be the one who never has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. It's your health. Your family. Your choice. And our mission continues. No forced vaccination. Not in America.

Read more: articles.mercola.com