Joints for Jabs or Cannabis for COVID

 With a substantial percentage of Americans expressing disinterest in being vaccinated with the current selection of COVID-19 vaccines as shown here:

...one group in Washington, D.C. believes that they have the solution - offer a gift to those who are willing to get vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine.

  

Here is a recent press release from DC Marijuana Justice or CDMJ:

 

Here is a quote from the press release with bolds being mine:

  

"Like many groups across the United States, DC Marijuana Justice (“DCMJ”) discontinued its regular in-person meetings when the coronavirus pandemic began last year. Without a safe way for citizens to publicly gather to advocate for reforming the cannabis laws in the District of Columbia, DCMJ is excited for the vaccinations to be widely available. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s recent announcement of forthcoming coronavirus vaccines is welcome news to DCMJ. To celebrate this momentous occasion and thank people for getting vaccinated, dozens of DC homegrowers will lawfully distribute free bags of cannabis outside vaccination centers as soon as the general public is able to get vaccinated.

  

Dubbed “Joints for Jabs,” a play on the jab of a vaccine injection, this community effort aims to highlight the need for further local and national cannabis reform while also advocating for equitable distribution of the critical vaccine. DCMJ notes that to safely share a cannabis joint without potentially contributing to the spread of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, each user must be vaccinated–an objective that necessitates accessibility for all District residents. The District of Columbia’s Department of Health has not yet named the public vaccination sites, but upon their identification DCMJ will issue a follow up to this release providing each ‘Joints for Jabs’ location, dates, and hours of operation...

 

During the pandemic cannabis dispensaries have been considered essential businesses. However, due to a patchwork of state laws and a lack of federal action, millions of Americans still source cannabis from the underground economy, which has varying degrees of quality and safety. As homegrowers, DCMJ members gifting cannabis will only share cannabis grown free of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers."

 

DC Marijuana Justice has a history of politics and cannabis giveaways.  Looking back to the Donald Trump inauguration on January 20, 2017, DCMJ organized a cannabis distribution demonstration called #Trump420 as a protest against marijuana prohibition.  By 10:00 am on inauguration day, there was a line of cannabis reform advocates stretching for 6 city blocks as shown here:

 

...and a total of over 10,000 cannabis joints were given away.

 

Let's close this posting with a quote from DCMJ co-founder Nikoas Schiller:

 

“We are looking for ways to safely celebrate the end of the pandemic and we know nothing brings people together like cannabis.  DCMJ believes that cannabis should be consumed safely and responsibly, and the pandemic has made this incredibly difficult for many adults to share their homegrown cannabis. When enough adults are inoculated with the coronavirus vaccine, it will be time to celebrate – not just the end of the pandemic, but the beginning of the end of cannabis prohibition in the United States.”

Anal Swabbing - The Latest in Testing for COVID-19

Here is a recent headline from the Global Times, the daily tabloid paper which operates under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper:

 

Here are some quotes from the article with my bolds:

  

"Beijing reported a 9-year-old boy tested positive for COVID-19 last week, and his school conducted a variety of tests including serum antibody tests, nasal, throat, and even anal swabs for all its staff and students, prompting many to wonder if anal swabs could be more accurate in detecting the virus than other measures.

 

Li Tongzeng, a deputy director in charge of infectious disease at Beijing You'an Hospital, said that studies have shown that the coronavirus survives longer in the anus or excrement than those taken from upper body tracts, and for some silent carriers the virus may be present in their throats for 3 to 5 days, allowing some tests to provide false negative results. 

 

Taking an anal swab could increase accuracy in key groups, Li noted during an interview with the China Central Television. However, given that the method is not as convenient as throat swabs, it will only be applied to key groups at quarantine centers."

 

The article does go on to note that this testing method has proven to be controversial among some experts, largely because the virus has been proven to be contracted through the upper respiratory tract rather than the digestive system, meaning that the most efficient tests are using nasal and throat swabs....at least for now.

  

Five days later on January 28, 2021, the Global Times did add a cautionary note in this article:

 

Here are some quotes from the latest article on anal swabbing for COVID-19:

 

"News of the use of anal swabs for COVID-19 testing has startled Chinese netizens. The method is more accurate than nose and throat swabs, albeit awkward for recipients. Yet the Global Times learned that anal swabs are not feasible for mass testing and the method is only used in certain Chinese cities, such as Beijing and Qingdao, among certain high-risk groups, such as overseas arrivals. 

 

"You take off your pants, lie on the bed, and then you feel the cotton swabs inserted into your anus twice and turned a few times, which takes about 10 seconds each time," was how one person who took the test described the "awkward" experience to the Beijing News.

 

But the method has only been used on a few key groups.

 

Shanghai used anal swab testing as one of the standards for releasing COVID-19 patients from the hospital in early 2020, but later dropped the requirement, Lu Hongzhou, co-director of the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center at Fudan University in Shanghai, told the Global Times on Thursday….

 

Scientists have also found that the clearance of coronavirus in nose and throat swabs is faster than anal swabs, which means that for silent carriers and people whose respiratory symptoms have disappeared, anal swabs will be more suitable. 

 

Anal swabs aren't feasible in massive testing, but Lu supported expanding anal swab testing to all international arrivals and high-risk groups under medical observation to guarantee the testing accuracy."

 

Given that governments are rarely inhabited by original thinkers and the fact that the developed world followed China's lead when it came to locking down its citizens, don't be surprised if anal swabbing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus comes to a testing centre near you.  Better get used to the idea of dropping your pants and being violated by a cotton swab all in the name of protecting humanity.

Masking While Exercising and the Tangled Web of the Masking Mandate

A recent piece on "The Conversation" looked at the use of masks while exercising.  Before we get to the content of the piece, let's look at some background regarding "The Conversation" to help put the article into context.

 

Here is what "The Conversation" has to say about itself (from the American version of the website):

 

The Conversation was founded in 2011 and has editions in Africa, Australia (founding nation), Canada, Spain, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, theUnited Kingdom and the United States as well as a Global Perspectives edition

 

Here are the founding partners of The Conversation, again, from the United States edition:

 

Here are the funders of The Conversation:

 

Please note that I am saving one last strategic partner for the end of this posting as a "surprise".

  

In order to have your musings published by The Conversation, you must "...be currently employed as a researcher or academic with a university or university-affiliated research institution. PhD candidates under supervision by an academic can write for us, but we don’t currently publish articles from Masters students."

  

In other words, the riffraff/useless eaters/sweaty masses need not apply no matter how qualified they might be.

  

Now, let's look at the article that will be the focus of the remainder of this posting.  Here is a screen capture showing the title:

 

Here is some information about the author of the article, Trish Greenhalgh:

 

Here are some key quotes from her musings with bolds being mine:

  

"Masks, which when worn correctly are highly effective in reducing transmission, are already compulsory in indoor public places in the UK. There is talk of making them mandatory in some outdoor settings, as is currently the case in Spain. Perhaps the UK should follow France and require people who are jogging or cycling to wear masks if they are unable to maintain a physical distance from pedestrians.

 

There are many arguments against such a measure. The risk of transmitting coronavirus outdoors is an order of magnitude less than indoors, according to a study that has yet to be published in a scientific journal. Exercising outdoors is one of the few freedoms people in England still have. When jogging or cycling, contacts tend to be rare and fleeting, so would not meet the UK’s official definition of a “close contact” for which one needs to spend 15 minutes closer than two metres – though this time period can now be notched up in a series of shorter encounters throughout a day." 

  

Greenhalagh goes on to invoke the World Health Organization:

  

"The World Health Organization (WHO) is adamant that: “People should NOT wear masks when exercising, as masks may reduce the ability to breathe comfortably”; and “Sweat can make the mask become wet more quickly which makes it difficult to breathe and promotes the growth of microorganisms.” The WHO recommendation is to maintain at least one-metre physical distance from others.

 

But there are also strong arguments for challenging the WHO’s advice. The main one being that the NHS is truly overwhelmed for the first time in its 70-year history because of the rise in COVID hospital admissions. All possible measures must be taken to reduce these numbers."

 

Here is her "ethical argument" for wearing masks while exercising:

  

"1.) The exhaled breath of someone who is exercising vigorously has a different composition and different aerodynamic properties to that of someone who is not. As we all know, a passing jogger breathes heavily, generating exhalations with much higher momentum than occurs with resting breathing. 

 

In cold weather, clouds of moisture-laden air become visible as the jogger exhales – and these clouds spread much farther than those exhaled by walkers. Formal studies of the aerodynamics of breathing confirm that heavy breathers emit turbulent gas clouds in which are suspended droplets and microdroplets of different sizes, some of which are carried considerably farther than two metres.

 

2.) Several coronavirus variants have been shown to be more transmissible than the original virus. Because each infected person is now likely to infect between 30%-60% more people than previously, an unlucky inhalation in the vicinity of a passing jogger – itself a rare possibility – is now much more likely to lead to an escalating series of secondary cases, one or more of which could be fatal.

 

...and, most frighteningly...

 

3.) A final reason for wearing masks when exercising near others is the message of social solidarity it conveys. The masked jogger or cyclist is saying both “the pandemic is still very serious” and “your safety is more important than my comfort or my lap time”. Instead of aggressive stand-offs between maskless exercisers and fearful walkers (which sometimes involves the potentially contagious act of shouting at close quarters), we could look forward to both parties exchanging a silent wave as they pass peacefully."

 

And there we have it, virtue signalling is considered by this author to be one of the main reasons why we should wear masks while exercising in the great outdoors.

 

With this in mind, let's take a closer look at the author.  As shown here, Greenhalgh just happens to be a contributor to the World Economic Forum's Agenda series (Stories shaping the Global, Regional and Industry agendas) as shown here:

 

Greenhalgh was also the signatory on an open letter from May 14, 2020, promoting the use of fabric masks to prevent COVID-19.  The letter was co-ordinated by Jeremy Howard, a research scientist at the University of San Francisco and also appeared as the subject of a missive on The Conversation website as shown here:

It is interesting to note that Howard quotes advice given by Greenhalgh in the aforementioned article.  

Now that we've added another player to the "masking game", let's take a closer look at Jeremy Howard.  Between 2013 and January 2019, he was a Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum.  Here is his CV from his page on the WEF website where he is now a member of the WEF's Global AI Council

 

Here is his CV from his page on the WEF website where he was a member of the WEF's Global AI Council:

 

He also happens to be a contributor to "The Conversation" as I noted above and as shown here:

 

Now that we've seen how tangled this masking mandate web is, let's look at the final piece of the puzzle that I promised to share at the beginning of this posting.  Here is a screen capture from The Conversation website the United States edition's strategic partner:

 

....and there we have it; once again the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation shows up like flies on a steaming, fresh turd.  Given that many of the "experts" whose opinions are shared on The Conversation's website and their links with various research universities around the globe, particularly Oxford University (Trish Greenhalgh's employer and a member of The Conversation's UK edition) that are heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, what are the odds that their view on subjects like the pandemic won't completely parallel that of "their maker/funder"?

 

Now that you have seen how tangled the masking mandate web is, I would suggest that we need do the following: anyone who is considered an expert on any aspect of COVID-19 should be asked whether they or their employer has ever received any funding from Bill Gates just so that the unwashed masses can put their "expertise" into context.  All you have to do is follow the money and you'll figure out the veracity of the message.  Trish Greenhalgh and her masking while exercising is but one example of the tangled web that exists behind the Cult of COVID.

China's Roadmap for a New Multipolar Global Reality

The world is breathing a sigh of relief knowing that our overlords have, once again, met at the Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum virtual Davos Meeting, setting the agenda for the unwashed masses/useless eaters.  One of the world's most influential leaders, Chinese President Xi Jinping, gave his special address entitled "Let the Torch of Multilateralism Light up Humanity's Way" by way of a video link, providing the world with a sense of how China views the newly minted Biden Administration.  Let's look at some key excerpts.

  

Xi opens by outlining the four major tasks facing the people of our times, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic:

  

"The first is to step up macroeconomic policy coordination and jointly promote strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth of the world economy. We are going through the worst recession since the end of World War II. For the first time in history, the economies of all regions have been hit hard at the same time, with global industrial and supply chains clogged and trade and investment down in the doldrums. Despite the trillions of dollars in relief packages worldwide, global recovery is rather shaky and the outlook remains uncertain….We need to shift the driving forces and growth models of the global economy and improve its structure, so as to set the course for long-term, sound and steady development of the world economy.

 

The second is to abandon ideological prejudice and jointly follow a path of peaceful coexistence, mutual benefit and win-win cooperation. No two leaves in the world are identical, and no histories, cultures or social systems are the same. Each country is unique with its own history, culture and social system, and none is superior to the other. The best criteria are whether a country’s history, culture and social system fit its particular situation, enjoy people’s support, serve to deliver political stability, social progress and better lives, and contribute to human progress….Difference in itself is no cause for alarm. What does ring the alarm is arrogance, prejudice and hatred; it is the attempt to impose hierarchy on human civilization or to force one’s own history, culture and social system upon others. The right choice is for countries to pursue peaceful coexistence based on mutual respect and on expanding common ground while shelving differences, and to promote exchanges and mutual learning. This is the way to add impetus to the progress of human civilization.

 

The third is to close the divide between developed and developing countries and jointly bring about growth and prosperity for all. Today, inequality continues to grow, the North-South gap remains to be bridged, and sustainable development faces severe challenges….The international community should keep its eyes on the long run, honor its commitment, and provide necessary support to developing countries and safeguard their legitimate development interests. Equal rights, equal opportunities and equal rules should be strengthened, so that all countries will benefit from the opportunities and fruits of development.

 

The fourth is to come together against global challenges and jointly create a better future for humanity. In the era of economic globalization, public health emergencies like COVID-19 may very well recur, and global public health governance needs to be enhanced. The Earth is our one and only home. To scale up efforts to address climate change and promote sustainable development bears on the future of humanity. No global problem can be solved by any one country alone. There must be global action, global response and global cooperation."

  

Xi goes on to make the following recommendations, all of which are directly aimed at the United States in one way or another:

 

1.) A commitment to openness and inclusiveness rather than closeness and exclusion.

 

2.) A commitment to international law and international rules rather than seeking one's own supremacy.

 

3.) A commitment to consultation and cooperation rather than conflict and confrontation.

 

4.) A commitment to keeping up with the times rather than rejecting change.

 

Xi focuses on one key issue.  Under his recommendation to openness and inclusiveness, Xi makes the following statement with all bolds being mine:

 

"Multilateralism is about having international affairs addressed through consultation and the future of the world decided by everyone working together. To build small circles or start a new Cold War, to reject, threaten or intimidate others, to willfully impose decoupling, supply disruption or sanctions, and to create isolation or estrangement will only push the world into division and even confrontation. We cannot tackle common challenges in a divided world, and confrontation will lead us to a dead end. Humanity has learned lessons the hard way, and that history is not long gone. We must not return to the path of the past."

Under his recommendation to consultation and cooperation, he makes the following statement:

 

"Differences in history, culture and social system should not be an excuse for antagonism or confrontation, but rather an incentive for cooperation. We should respect and accommodate differences, avoid meddling in other countries’ internal affairs, and resolve disagreements through consultation and dialogue. History and reality have made it clear, time and again, that the misguided approach of antagonism and confrontation, be it in the form of cold war, hot war, trade war or tech war, would eventually hurt all countries’ interests and undermine everyone’s well-being.

 

We should reject the outdated Cold War and zero-sum game mentality, adhere to mutual respect and accommodation, and enhance political trust through strategic communication. It is important that we stick to the cooperation concept based on mutual benefit, say no to narrow-minded, selfish beggar-thy-neighbor policies, and stop unilateral practice of keeping advantages in development all to oneself. Equal rights to development should be guaranteed for all countries to promote common development and prosperity. We should advocate fair competition, like competing with each other for excellence in a racing field, not beating each other on a wrestling arena."

Xi closes by noting that China will continue to promote a new type of international relations:

 

"Zero-sum game or winner-takes-all is not the guiding philosophy of the Chinese people. As a staunch follower of an independent foreign policy of peace, China is working hard to bridge differences through dialogue and resolve disputes through negotiation and to pursue friendly and cooperative relations with other countries on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit. As a steadfast member of developing countries, China will further deepen South-South cooperation, and contribute to the endeavor of developing countries to eradicate poverty, ease debt burden, and achieve more growth. China will get more actively engaged in global economic governance and push for an economic globalization that is more open, inclusive, balanced and beneficial to all."

 

From Xi's keynote speech to the World Economic Forum, it is clear that China wants to implement a new geopolitical reality in the world, one where China shares in global leadership and puts an end, for once and for all, to Washington's unipolar world where a new Cold War is "knocking at the door".

Twitter's Birdwatch - Promoting and Controlling Its Narrative

Just in case you missed it, here is a recent announcement from Twitter, the self-appointed "Guardian of Truth" on the internet:

 

...and here:

Here is Twitter's reasoning behind the need for Birdwatch:

  

"People come to Twitter to stay informed, and they want credible information to help them do so. We apply labels and add context to Tweets, but we don't want to limit efforts to circumstances where something breaks our rules or receives widespread public attention. We also want to broaden the range of voices that are part of tackling this problem, and we believe a community-driven approach can help. That’s why today we’re introducing Birdwatch, a pilot in the US of a new community-driven approach to help address misleading information on Twitter."

 

A "community-based approach'?  What could go wrong, especially when Twitter controls the platform!

Here's more information on Birdwatch which is currently available in the United States (unless you happen to have a VPN with a server in the U.S.):

 

"Birdwatch allows people to identify information in Tweets they believe is misleading and write notes that provide informative context. We believe this approach has the potential to respond quickly when misleading information spreads, adding context that people trust and find valuable. Eventually we aim to make notes visible directly on Tweets for the global Twitter audience, when there is consensus from a broad and diverse set of contributors.

 

In this first phase of the pilot, notes will only be visible on a separate Birdwatch site. On this site, pilot participants can also rate the helpfulness of notes added by other contributors. These notes are being intentionally kept separate from Twitter for now, while we build Birdwatch and gain confidence that it produces context people find helpful and appropriate. Additionally, notes will not have an effect on the way people see Tweets or our system recommendations."

 

As Twitter notes, let's all build Birdwatch together:

"To date, we have conducted more than 100 qualitative interviews with individuals across the political spectrum who use Twitter, and we received broad general support for Birdwatch. In particular, people valued notes being in the community’s voice (rather than that of Twitter or a central authority) and appreciated that notes provided useful context to help them better understand and evaluate a Tweet (rather than focusing on labeling content as  “true” or “false”). Our goal is to build Birdwatch in the open, and have it shaped by the Twitter community.

To that end, we’re also taking significant steps to make Birdwatch transparent: 

All data contributed to Birdwatch will be publicly available and downloadable in TSV files 

As we develop algorithms that power Birdwatch — such as reputation and consensus systems — we aim to publish that code publicly in the Birdwatch Guide. The initial ranking system for Birdwatch is already available here. 

We hope this will enable experts, researchers, and the public to analyze or audit Birdwatch, identifying opportunities or flaws that can help us more quickly build an effective community-driven solution."

  

If you want to sign up for Birdwatch pilot program, here is what you'll need:

"To participate in the pilot, accounts must have:

 

Verified phone and email

 

This makes it more likely that participants are real people instead of bots or adversary actors.

 

A trusted U.S.-based phone carrier

 

Intended to reduce the use of artificially created or virtual phone numbers

 

Two-factor authentication enabled

 

Intended to reduce the chance of malicious attempts to hijack participant’s accounts.

 

No recent notice of Twitter Rules violations

 

Intended to reduce the likelihood of abusive contributions."

 

Here is how Twitter will manage the admissions process for Birdwatch:

 

"The pilot will start small and grow over time. Our goal is to admit applicants on a rolling, periodic basis. We will admit all participants who meet the required criteria, but if we have more applicants than pilot slots, we will randomly admit accounts, prioritizing accounts that are likely to participate due to having been recently active on Twitter, and those that tend to follow and engage with different tweets than existing participants do — so as to reduce the likelihood that participants would be predominantly from one ideology, background, or interest space."

  Here is a screen capture showing the "Join the Birdwatch pilot on the Twitter website:

 

My guess is that Twitter is just using Birdwatch as another means of promoting and controlling its own narrative and scrubbing its platform of any tweets that don't follow its limited worldview on key issues...but then I could be wrong....but I somehow doubt it.

The Top Level Link between the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum

With the World Health Organization (WHO) at the forefront of the medical side of the COVID-19 pandemic and the World Economic Forum (WEF) at the forefront of what our society will look like in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era, it is interesting to look at the connections between the leaders of the two organizations.

 

First, we have this fellow who is driving the COVID-19 pandemic medical agenda:

 

...and, then we have this fellow who is driving the post-COVID-19 pandemic economic agenda:

 

Now, thanks to Twitter, we can link these two members of the ruling class together as shown here:

Back in 2017, the two representatives of the oligarchy were already preparing for a "closer WHO-WEF collaboration" by being prepared for "health emergencies".

 

Here's Ghebreyesus once again "blowing smoke up the ass" of Klaus Schwab at the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that Schwab did not have a Twitter account at that point in time:

 

 

On November 26, 2020, Klaus Schwab took a leap of faith and entered the Twittersphere.  For a man who praises technology at every turn, his late arrival on Twitter is rather interesting.  If you should happen to care, here is a link to his account (although I must admit it is fascinating to note that he has comments turned off, probably in an effort to control hate speech):

 

Schwab's first tweet was to promote "The Davos Agenda" as shown here:

As an aside, note that The Davos Agenda is set to be a virtual meeting this year meaning that there is no need for all of those private jets (using unicorn farts as fuel to reduce their owners' carbon footprint) to fly in and out of Davos as is typical in other years.  The agenda of the meeting is stated clearly on the WEF's "The Davos Agenda" webpage as shown here:

 

It is important to note that "The Davos Agenda" is "committed to improving the state of the world" through the following:

 

Thankfully, the ruling class will receive ideas on helping them "choose innovative and bold solutions to stem the pandemic and drive a robust economy over the next year".  That's a relief for us all, particularly since the useless eaters are unable to fix the economic problems that governments have created for us all during the pandemic?

 

Now, back to the two best ruling class friends.  Once Schwab was part of the Twittersphere, Ghebreyesus wasted no time in, once again, blowing smoke in Schwab's direction as shown here:

 

There is a Japanese proverb "When the character of a person is not clear, look at their friends" better known the West as "You can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep".  In the case of the overlords at the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum, this mantra has proven itself to be particularly apt.  Schwab and Ghebreyesus are fine examples of how the ruling class has given itself the right to control us all.