Video: Bill Gates partners with DARPA, DoD to develop DNA nano-tech COVID-19 vaccine

Bill Gates Partners With DARPA & Department of Defense For New DNA Nanotech COVID19 Vaccine! - YouTube

In this powerful interview, Spiro is joined by Whitney Webb and Ryan Cristian from The Last American Vagabond, as they discuss the rollout of a new system of control the likes of which the world has never seen.

It has been said to never let a good crisis go to waste and it appears the ones pulling the strings are taking full advantage of the current crisis as more and more evidence emerges contradicting the official story that suggests this crisis is no accident.

The fact that Bill Gates has teamed up with the Department of Defense and DARPA, which is the special project research and development arm of the pentagon to develop a brand new type of vaccine, which is being rushed into production is alarming to say the least.

Especially considering this new kind of DNA / RNA vaccine would normally take 15-20 years to roll out, while this one is being rolled out in a matter of months and is already undergoing human clinical trials. The urgency and rolled back regulations to streamline this new vaccine is of course, justified by the crisis.

Two important updates in the COVID-19 World Order

These updates, and more, are listed on the Coronavirus (COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2) news and resources page which i have been updating daily.

BREAKING: Funeral Directors in COVID-19 Epicenter Doubt Legitimacy of Deaths Attributed to Pandemic - YouTube

From Project Veritas, 30-Apr-2020

Episode 20: Exclusive Interview w/ Dr. Dan Erickson Under Attack for Questioning Coronavirus Mortality Rate

Ben Swann interviews Dr. Dan Erickson

VIDEO: COVID-19: "Patients are Left to Rot and Die ... This is Murder"

From Health Impact News...

Front Line Medical Workers Speak Out on COVID19 Treatments: "Patients are Left to Rot and Die – This is Murder"

As we move into the last week of April, 2020, medical personnel working on the front lines of the COVID-19 response are increasingly speaking out about what they are seeing and experiencing, which they claim is a completely different narrative from what the corporate-sponsored media is portraying.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls for investigation into Bill Gates for crimes against humanity

From Global Research, 18-Apr-2020...

Bill Gates and the Depopulation Agenda. Robert F. Kennedy Junior Calls for an Investigation - Global Research

For over twenty years Bill Gates and his Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have been vaccinating foremost children by the millions in remote areas of poor countries, mostly Africa and Asia. Most of their vaccination program had disastrous results, causing the very illness (polio, for example in India) and sterilizing young women (Kenya, with modified tetanus vaccines). Many of the children died. Many of the programs were carried out with the backing of the WHO and – yes – the UN Agency responsible for the Protection of Children, UNICEF.

Most of these vaccination campaigns were implemented without the informed-consent of the children, parents, guardians or teachers, nor with the informed-consent, or with forged consent, of the respective government authorities. In the aftermath, The Gates Foundation was sued by governments around the world, Kenya, India, the Philippines – and more.

Bill Gates has a strange image of himself. He sees himself as The Messiah who saves the world through vaccination – and through population reduction.

Around the time, when the 2010 Rockefeller Report was issued, with its even more infamous “Lock Step” Scenario, precisely the scenario of which we are living the beginning right now, Bill Gates talked on a TED show in California, “Innovating to Zero” about the use of energy.

He used this TED presentation to promote his vaccination programs, literally saying, “If we are doing a real good job vaccinating childen, we can reduce the world population by 10% to 15%”.

Click here to read the rest and watch the videos.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION.

POTENTIAL CRITICAL UPDATE REGARDING THE "CORONA VIRUS" (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2)

Recently David Icke did an interview with London Real titled DAVID ICKE - RENEGADE. I'm not a fan of Icke, however he presented some very disturbing information regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus and some of it seemed like it might be creditable. Of particular importance were his statements that the test being used widely to diagnose the presence of the virus in humans is completely unreliable. In short, David stated that the method used for testing, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), was never intended to be used for detecting the presence of a virus and this is one reason why the numbers of infected persons and deaths has no bearing on reality.

This is important information and something i wanted to verify, and it appears i may have found the verification i was seeking when i came across an article titled Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus? by Celia Farber from UncoverDC.

From Wikipedia, "Celia Ingrid Farber is an American print journalist and author who has covered a range of topics for magazines including Spin, Rolling Stone, Esquire, Harper's, Interview, Salon, Gear, New York Press, Media Post, The New York Post and Sunday Herald, and has been particularly noted for her beliefs about HIV and AIDS, and a 1998 report on O. J. Simpson's post-trial life.[1] Farber is the daughter of radio talk pioneer Barry Farber and a graduate of New York University.[1][2]"

Following are excerpts from Farber's article, Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?. I encourage people to do their own research and, most importantly, SHARE THIS INFORMATION! If you know anyone in the medical community, please provide them with this information. It is absolutely critical that the people of this world push back against the crap being spoon-fed to all of us by the incompetent, corrupt, psychopaths that are far more dangerous than any virus.

“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “

If things were done right, “infection” would be a far cry from a positive PCR test.

“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it,” Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics told me. “You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms.”

I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19.

“Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me,” he replies. “No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”

[...]

PCR is a needle in a haystack technology that can be extremely misleading in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” The first conflict between this revolutionary technology and human life happened on the battlefield of AIDS, and Mullis himself came to the front line arguing against PCR as diagnostic tool.

[...]

I conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe– Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS. He broke down the problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery.

“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.”

[...]

“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”

[...]

“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”

Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?

“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”

“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again. So how do you interpret this? How do you have a test if a test act is actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then the negative results must’ve been wrong? And so, one way to solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38. You can move this, this cycle of numbers. It’s an arbitrary division up or down. But there’s no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn’t still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from, from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right? So, you can’t solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so basically this says that the test is not detecting infection. Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”

[...]

“There was a famous Chinese paper that estimated that if you’re testing asymptomatic people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive. That was kind of shocking, so shocking that PubMed had to withdraw the abstract even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available. I actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it’s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.”

[...]

Crowe described a case in the literature of a woman who had been in contact with a suspect case of Corona (in Wuhan) they believed was the index case. “She was important to the supposed chain of infection because of this. They tested her 18 times, different parts of the body, like nose, throat—different PCR tests. 18 different tests. And she tested negative every time. And then they—because of her epidemiological connection with the other cases, they said: “We consider her infected. So, they had 18 negative tests and they said she was infected.”

[...]

“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”

[...]

“I don’t think they understand what they’re doing,” he said. “I think it’s out of control. They don’t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started.”

“I just want to identify who sponsored that simulation conference, 6 weeks before the first news broke out of Wuhan,” I interjected. “It was the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Johns Hopkins Center For Health Security, and the World Economic Forum. Incidentally, all the stats, projections and modeling you see in the media are coming out of Johns Hopkins.”

[...]

“Right. So, this beautiful pandemic machine is a lot like…let’s use an example of an aircraft simulator. Okay. So, so pilots are tested on an aircraft simulator. So if you’re flying along in an airplane and there’s a loud bang and you see smoke coming from an engine on the right hand side, this is probably the first time a pilot has ever been in an airplane that had an engine failure. But he’s tested this scenario 25 times on an aircraft simulator. So, he knows exactly what to do without being told. He goes through the procedure. He doesn’t have to think, he just does the steps that he’s been taught through the, the aircraft simulator and he successfully lands the airplane with one engine. So, a pandemic simulator is just like that. You sit down at the computer, you see the virus going around the world, um, and you say, okay, so what we need to do is we need to dress everybody in protective clothing.”

"We need to quarantine everybody who’s positive. Next step. We need to do social isolation. It’s a mathematical model. And at the end you always win, right? So, in the end, the good guys win, and the pandemic is defeated. But there’s, there’s never been like an actual real pandemic since they built this machine. So, there’s this huge machine, it’s got a red button on it and it’s like if you ever detect a pandemic starting, you press the red button."

[...]

In another part of our conversation, he said something unforgettable:

“So, we’ve essentially been taken over by the medical Taliban, if you like.”

I pressed him one last time:

“David, in conclusion, finish this sentence: “The PCR test for Corona is as good as…”

His reply made me laugh. I didn’t know I still could laugh.

“It’s as good as that Scientology test that detects your personality and then tells you need to give all your money to Scientology. "