The audio needs cranking up, and the good Hitchens is looking a bit unwell, but worth a listen.
This is a patent application seeking to patent Methods and systems of prioritizing treatments, vaccination, testing and/or activities while protecting the privacy of individuals. This is how it was described in the note that was sent to me with this now approved patent application:
This Pfizer patent application was approved August 31st, 2021, and is the very first patent that shows up in a list of over 18500 for the purpose of remote contact tracing of all vaccinated humans worldwide who will be or are now connected to the “internet of things” by a quantum link of pulsating microwave frequencies of 2.4 gHz or higher from cell towers and satellites directly to the graphene oxide held in the fatty tissues of all persons who’ve had the death-shot.
This is the abstract on the patent itself:
System and methods for anonymously selecting subjects for treatment against an infectious disease caused by a pathogen . The system comprises a plurality of electronic devices comprising instructions to generate an ID and , when in proximity of another such electronic device , one or both electronic devices transmit / receive the ID to / from the other electronic device . Then , a score is generated based on a plurality of such received IDs . Additionally , based on information received from a server , relevant treatment instructions are displayed to the subjects based on the received information and the score . The server comprises instructions for sending to the plurality of electronic devices the information to be displayed with the relevant treatment instructions, additionally the server and / or the electronic devices comprise instructions to generate a prediction of likelihood of a subject transmitting the pathogen, based on the score of the subject.
This is the first of the claims on the patent application:
What is claimed is:
1. A method of prophylactically vaccinating a population having a plurality of subjects with a vaccine against an epidemic infectious disease, said plurality of subjects each using a smart electronic device, the method comprising: a. a. using an ID for each said smart electronic device for determining a propensity of proximity of each said plurality of subjects; said determining a propensity of proximity comprises: i. at a proximity event, when a particular said smart electronic device of a particular said subject is in proximity of one or more other of said smart electronic devices, transmitting an ID or an indication thereof to said one or more other smart electronic devices and receiving an ID or indication thereof from said one or more other smart electronic devices, by said particular smart electronic device; said proximity event being an event where said particular said subject could, if infected, potentially infect other subjects with said infectious disease; ii. generating a score reflecting a propensity for proximity, according to a plurality of received IDs; said propensity of proximity reflecting a chance of infecting other subjects if said particular said subject becomes infected; b. generating for each said plurality of subjects a prioritization of vaccination based on said score; said prioritization being higher for subjects having a higher propensity of proximity; and c. prophylactically vaccinating particular subjects of said plurality of subjects according to said prioritization.
Let me direct you to page 68 of the patent application where the criterion they are using as an example of the kind of activity they will be able to identify is “Visits religious gathering”. Why anyone would wish to know something like that one can only imagine, but look for yourself. It seems beyond sinister.
As I understand what we are looking at is a means to inject everyone with a means to trace where they are and where they have been every second of every day through the “graphene oxide” that has been injected into each individual.
This is on page 68 as well:
It is expected that during the life of a patent maturing from this application many relevant parameters of scoring activity of individuals and methods of measuring said parameters will be developed ; the scope of the invention herein is intended to include all such new technologies a priori .
If I understand this right, the government will be able to contact trace you everywhere you go every day of your life according to whichever criteria they choose based on a vaccination you have received.
I hope others will be able to clarify what is being patented and what it will be able to do. My guess is that we have moved so far forward into whatever plans are in train that no one any longer cares who knows about this since the relative handful of those who care will be able to do nothing, while the majority just will not care at all no matter what is said.
The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce (NCCET) very recently updated its Ivermectin guidance (h/t: Muddy on the OOT). Apart from the standard mention of the ‘dangers’ of ivermectin, they write:
The certainty of the current evidence base varies from low to very low depending which on outcome is being measured, as a result of serious risk of bias and serious imprecision in the 18 included studies.
But they don’t actually mention which studies they’ve included. However, they Continue reading “Which 18 studies?”
Five million Melburnians will be freed from a months-long lockdown this week after the Victorian government accelerated the easing of restrictions, citing new modelling which has drastically cut projections for hospitalisations.
This was the lead para in the front page story in The Oz today: Melbourne lockdown: Vaccine surge delivers freedom for five million people. New modelling! That is, up until now their calculations have been wrong and they now have an improved calculation. Any chance of an apology?
What a despicable crew of incompetents! The real change is in the government in NSW which has led the way. Dan had little choice but to follow along.
URGENT: You have until 5pm 27 Oct to ‘’have your say’’ against the ‘’Trusted Digital Identity Bill’’ currently being proposed by the (Liberal) Government of Australia. This Bill has been deliberately kept quiet and it is now at Stage 3. Stages 1 and 2 have been passed. Stage 3 means the public has an opportunity to voice opposition to it. If we as Australians do not speak out against this Bill, the Government will assume that our silence is consent. This is a fact not rhetoric. They are proposing Facial Recognition, amongst other things. It will affect the way we shop., it also allows for our locations to be constantly monitored – more so than now. Continue reading “Guest Post: Gab – Action Item on the Trusted Digital Identity Bill”
On the Open Thread, Makka says: October 16, 2021 at 9:27 am
“The fact is most people threw their lot in with the Man long ago. Credit cards, mortgages, the o/seas holidays, keeping up with the Joneses. Debt up to the eyeballs. To service it there can be no interruption whatsoever to income. Then there is the family ties spread across the wide brown land. That’s life as we know it and for it to continue the turds governing us know the vast majority will comply just to get on with it. The bud has blossomed and died long ago.”
In maybe 2014, I woke one morning with a premonition. Well, a hunch … or maybe a clue.
There is a fundamental difference between authoritarian regimes of the right, and authoritarian regimes such as we are currently experiencing from the left.
But first, imagine a person who is a hypothetical perfect moral person in touch with God or some universal arbiter of good and evil. Imagine that there can be a left wing or a right wing version of such a thing. This person always does the right thing, even at the cost of breaking rules or laws.
A right wing version of this would be the original Dirty Harry, who when Scorpio had a young victim buried in a hole and running out of air, Harry ignored rules, the rights of the criminal, and even his own career, to beat the location of the girl out of the crim.
Because right wing regimes care about law and order, we can say that in this case Dirty Harry is acting as a perfect moral person substitute for a right wing regime.
And it is this that is a difference between left wing authoritarians and right wing authoritarians. We can imagine individual people driven by a moral imperative to act as a substitute for the things a right wing regime might want to achieve, But there is no such possibility with left wing regimes.
Take Stalin forcing industrialisation by taking all the grain off Ukrainian peasants to send to cities and overseas, making them sell every last grain to a centralised authority and thus causing mass starvation. Is there an analogous possible to imagine person who could commit an individual act to achieve likewise? No, there just isn’t an individual act that corresponds to mass starvation.
Abortion is another example that explains this difference. One could imagine an individual who discovers an abortion clinic like that Gosnell fellow’s and responds by taking the dude out with extreme prejudice if the law refuses to intervene. However, there is no counter case where a left winger could possibly think of a moral case, even from a left perspective, where it would work to break the law to kidnap some preggo woman off the street and abort her baby.
There are however cases where left regimes do such things on a regime wide level. For example, China’s one child policy. Now look at the regime level right extreme on abortion: Even when a right regime makes it illegal or extremely difficult to abort children, no one can actually physically force a woman to take a baby full term. It’s not possible. Now you might think that a Victorian era backyard abortionist is a left wing example of a perfect moral person (from the left viewpoint) breaking laws in an individual effort that achieves the same result as a left wing regime might by fiat. But this is not the case, because they were butchers who left many woman dead from infections and were motivated by profit, not morality.
Try it for yourself. Think of any thing that can be broken down into left and right, and try to think of ways in which a left wing person could act individually from a moral perspective in it’s name. It doesn’t exist.
It is because the right acts from an individual perspective and the left collectivise everything, that it is impossible for a leftist to act individually to further their causes from a moral perspective.
This is why leftist regimes tend harder to authoritarianism and stay there longer than right regimes. The left agenda does not lend itself to individual acts of moral courage.
In other words, the goal of the left in all things is to collectivise: collective guilt, collective ownership, group identity. You cannot achieve a collectivist goal through individualistic action. This is why, even in their authoritarian guises, the left and the right are fundamentally different and manifest themselves in completely different ways.