CoronaFraud.com

Showing posts with label Bill Gates. Show all posts

Crowdsourcing Science Inconsistencies, Economic & Legal Issues

188 issues and counting!

Due to the irregular nature of the COVID-19 responses, this is a crowdsourcing tool for organizing the economic ramifications, scientific inconsistencies, and legal issues. Our desire is to see a rational and principled approach to COVID-19 where the rights of citizens and commerce are protected.

This is for aggregating publicly available items of evidence that would be admissible in courts, not general news stories.

Submitted items may be edited or deleted to ensure the quality of content. 188 issues and counting!

List of COVID Disinformation Spreaders That Need To Be Investigated

Steve Kirsch believe that all of these people are involved in “The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” and have collectively led to the tragic death of over 1M Americans.

Nuremberg Trial Part II - Crimes Against Humanity

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich gives an opening statement summarising the findings of the court. Nuremburg 2 Trial Crimes Against Humanity

A group of International Lawyers lead by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich give opening statements in what could be the most important trial in human history.

Who are some of the Members of Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum that will be on trial?

Is the Mexican or US Government More Corrupt From Drug Money?

Dr. Robert Malone explains how Big Pharma influences public health policies implemented by the CDC and FDA on Candace Owens show.

Stockholm Syndrome, Human Psychology, and COVID Lockdowns

Bill Gates has systematically monopolized the global response to infectious disease through non-profits.

How Angry Moms Are Saving Our Democracy From Mass Hypnosis

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, breaks down the "mass formation" phenomenon that makes it difficult to reason with those who have fallen victim to the globalist leader propaganda. Hear what he says is the hope we have before a total takeover.

Subscribe Robert Malone's letter on Substack.

As many of you know, I have spent time researching and speaking about mass psychosis theory. Most of what I have learned has come from Dr. Mattias Desmet, who realized that this form of mass hypnosis, of the madness of crowds, can account for the strange phenomenon of about 20-30% of the population in the western world becoming entranced with the Noble Lies and dominant narrative concerning the safety and effectiveness of the genetic vaccines, and both propagated and enforced by politicians, science bureaucrats, pharmaceutical companies and legacy media.

What one observes with the mass hypnosis is that a large fraction of the population is completely unable to process new scientific data and facts demonstrating that they have been misled about the effectiveness and adverse impacts of mandatory mask use, lockdowns, and genetic vaccines that cause people’s bodies to make large amounts of the biologically active coronavirus Spike protein.

These hypnotized by this process are unable to recognize the lies and misrepresentations they are being bombarded with on a daily basis, and actively attack anyone who has the temerity to share information with them which contradicts the propaganda that they have come to embrace. And for those whose families and social networks have been torn apart by this process, and who find that close relatives and friends have ghosted them because they question the officially endorsed “truth” and are actually following the scientific literature, this can be a source of deep anguish, sorrow, and psychological pain.

It is with those souls in mind that I included a discussion of the mass formation theory of Dr. Mattias Desmet during a recent talk I gave in Tampa, Florida to an audience of about 2,000. As I looked out into the audience and spoke, I could see the relief on many faces, and even tears running from the eyes of stoic men.

Unknown to me, someone recorded the speech and appended the vocal track to a series of calming images of natural landscapes, producing a video that has gone viral throughout the world. A link to the video, as well as some notes to clarify and supplement the talk, are appended below. Many have told me that they find it very healing. I hope it may help you also.

A brief overview of Mass Formation, which was developed by Dr. Mattias Desmet. He is a psychologist and a statistician. He is at the University of Ghent in Belgium. I think Dr. Mattias is onto something about what is happening and he calls this phenomenon:

MASS FORMATION PSYCHOSIS

So, when he says “mass” formation, you can think of this as equivalent to “crowd” formation. One can think of this as:

CROWD PSYCHOSIS

The conditions to set up mass formation psychosis include lack of social connectedness and sensemaking as well as large amounts of latent anxiety and passive aggression. When people are inundated with a narrative that presents a plausible "object of anxiety" and strategy for coping with it, then many individuals group together to battle the object with a collective singlemindedness. This allows people to stop focusing on their own problems, avoiding personal mental anguish. Instead, they focus all their thought and energy on this new object.

As mass formation progresses, the group becomes increasingly bonded and connected. Their field of attention is narrowed and they become unable to consider alternative points of view. Leaders of the movement are revered, unable to do no wrong.

Left unabated, a society under the spell of mass formation will support a totalitarian governance structure capable of otherwise unthinkable atrocities in order to maintain compliance. A note: mass formation is different from groupthink. There are easy ways to fix group think by just bringing in dissenting voices and making sure you give them platforms. It isn’t so easy with mass formation. Even when the narrative falls apart, cracks in the strategy clearly aren’t solving the issue, the hypnotized crowd can’t break free of the narrative. This is what appears to be happening now with COVID-19. The solution for those in control of the narrative is to produce bigger and bigger lies to prop up the solution. Those being controlled by mass formation no longer are able to use reason to break free of the group narrative.

Of course, the obvious example of mass formation is Germany in the 1930s and 40s. How could the German people who were highly educated, very liberal in the classic sense; western thinking people… how could they go so crazy and do what they did to the Jews? How could this happen?

To a civilized people? A leader of a mass formation movement will use the platform to continue to pump the group with new information to focus on. In the case of COVID-19, I like to use the term “fear porn.” Leaders, through mainstream media and government channels continuously feed the “beast” with more messaging that focuses and further hypnotize their adherents.

Studies suggest that mass formation follows a general distribution:

30% are brainwashed, hypnotized, indoctrinated by the group narrative

40% in the middle are persuadable and may follow if no worthy alternative is perceived

30% fight against the narrative.

Those that rebel and fight against the narrative, become the enemy of the brainwashed and a primary target of aggression.

One of the best ways to counter mass formation is for those against the narrative to continue to speak out against it, which serves to help break the hypnosis of some in the brainwashed group as well as persuade the persuadable middle to choose reason over mindlessness.

Dr. Desmet suggests that for something as big as COVID-19, the only way to break the mass formation psychosis is to give the crowd something bigger to focus on. He believes that totalitarianism maybe that bigger issue. Of course, after COVID-19, global totalitarianism may be the biggest issue of our time.

Bill Gates - We need a new a new way of doing the vaccine

Despite being one of the largest proponents of presently-available COVID-19 vaccines, Gates admits to the failure of the vaccine industry that he has worked so hard to prop up.

Gates told Hunt that “we didn’t have vaccines that block transmission” regarding the available remedies for the virus at the onset of the crisis, later saying of the abortion-tainted COVID jabs, “we got vaccines to help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce the transmissions.”

“We need a new a new way of doing the vaccines,” Gates, who has been a prominent pusher of the shots, added.

Despite being one of the largest proponents of presently-available COVID-19 vaccines, Gates admits to the failure of the vaccine industry that he has worked so hard to prop up.

MORE: https://t.co/aw7PJZ86jM pic.twitter.com/lo9kKuImo9
— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) November 9, 2021

When Bill Gates bails on the vaccines, there are major problems brewing. https://t.co/i4eVVi0YmA
— Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker) November 11, 2021

Who Are The 'Disinformation' Enemies of Truth?

The only way to know who your enemy is in the age of disinformation is to follow the money.

China's Wuhan laboratory is owned by GlaxoSmithKline which owns Pfizer the company that makes the vaccines. Dr. Fauci funded the research at the Wuhan lab through NIH. GlaxoSmithKline is managed by the Private Equity finance division of Black Rock which manages the finances of Open Foundation Group for George Soros which manages the French Accent Group. Soros owns the German company that built the Wuhan laboratory which was bought by the German Alliance which has Vanguard as a shareholder. Black Rock, Vanguard and Alliance control the central banks and also have a large stake in Microsoft where Bill Gates is the Chairman. Bill Gates is a shareholder of Pfizer and BioNTech and a sponsor of the World Health Organization.

Billionaires Fund New Company Goodinfo.us to Fight For Monopoly of Truth 'Disinformation'

Bill Gates: My ‘best investment’ turned $10 billion into $200 billion worth of economic benefit.

Over the past two decades, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated “a bit more than $10 billion” into mainly three groups: the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.

Forget Class Action Lawsuits There Will Be Tribunals

Dr. Zelenko Board Certified Family Physician with over 20 years of experience. Dr. Zelenko was nominated for the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Nobel Prize, Dr. Zelenko’s team was one of the first in the country to successfully treat thousands of Covid-19 patients in the prehospital setting.

Dr. Zelenko developed his now famous “Zelenko Protocol,” which has saved countless lives worldwide. Dr. Zelenko recommended that President Trump take hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Zelenko explains how and why he decided to use HCQ and how he has created success in curing over 7000 patients who had covid. Cures already exist, and Dr. Zelenko believes that HCQ might even cure the flu and this is why the medical community is pushing back so hard, it would eliminate the flu shot.

All source links to the report can be found on the x22report.com site.

Most of artwork that is included with these videos has been created by X22 Report and they are used as a representation of the subject matter. The representative artwork included with these videos shall not be construed as the actual events that are taking place.

Fair Use Notice: This video contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair Use notwithstanding we will immediately comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed or modified, wants us to link to their website, or wants us to add their photo.

The X22 Report is "one man's opinion". Anything that is said on the report is either opinion, criticism, information or commentary, If making any type of investment or legal decision it would be wise to contact or consult a professional before making that decision.

Use the information found in these videos as a starting point for conducting your own research and conducting your own due diligence before making any significant investing decisions.

What Is Stakeholder Capitalism + COVAX + Big Tech + WHO + UN

What is stakeholder capitalism & how does big tech, COVAX, WHO, and UN play a role in coordinating to expand globalism.

76 countries, including Japan, Germany and Norway, have now signed up to the COVAX scheme. The COVAX initiative aims to “accelerate the development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines, and to guarantee fair and equitable access for every country in the world”. That, again, sounds wonderful, especially given the staggering inequalities in vaccination levels between rich and developing countries.

But why is the World Health Organization (WHO), which is part of the UN, not calling the shots? “Countries together, through multilateral agencies like the WHO, were supposed to make decisions about global health issues, with maybe some technical support by others,” says Sulakshana Nandi from NGO People's Health Movement, which has recently brought out a Policy Brief on COVAX.

Big Pharma investment opportunities

COVAX was set up as a multi-stakeholder group by two other multi-stakeholder groups, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), in partnership with the WHO. Both GAVI and CEPI have strong ties with the World Economic Forum (which was one of the founders of CEPI) as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and both are also connected to companies like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson through manufacturer partnerships (GAVI) or as 'supporters' (CEPI). Even though COVAX is funded predominantly by governments, it is these corporate-centered coalitions that are overseeing its roll-out.

The contrast between the multi-stakeholder approach and a 'classic' multilateral one came to the surface when South Africa and India proposed the so-called TRIPS waiver at the end of last year. They requested a temporary lifting of intellectual property rules on all COVID-19 technologies in order to boost the manufacturing and distribution of vaccines and other essential medical products in mainly developing countries. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a speech that he backed the proposal. “But GAVI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – even Bill Gates himself – and Big Pharma opposed this proposal very strongly,” said Nandi. “It's more important for them to protect their interests and market mechanisms than to protect universal health or protect people from COVID.” The WHO was approached for comment but has not replied.

Again, there is a stark choice between a human rights-led approach carried out by the UN and a profit-led approach carried out by multistakeholder bodies representing the interests of corporations. In the case of COVAX – which is failing to meet its modest aim of vaccinating 20% of the populations of low- and middle-income countries – the former has won out.

Something fishy really is going on in the realm of global governance. If you value your right to public health, to privacy, to access healthy food or to democratic representation, be wary of the words 'stakeholder capitalism’ when they pop up at the next Davos summit.

Big tech governing big tech

Another landmark in the development of stakeholder capitalism can be found in the Big Tech sector. As a part of his 2020 Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, the UN Secretary-General called for the formation of a new ‘strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body’. Again it's not easy to find a list of stakeholders but after some digging a long list of ‘roundtable participants’ for the roadmap includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft and the WEF.

Although the functions laid out for this new body are quite vague, civil society organizations fear it will come down to Big Tech creating a global body to govern itself. This risks institutionalizing these companies' resistance against effective regulation both globally and nationally and increasing their power over governments and multilateral organizations. If the body comes to fruition, it could be a decisive victory in the ongoing war GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft) is waging with governments over tax evasion, antitrust rules, and their ever-expanding power over society.

More than 170 civil society groups worldwide have signed another open letter to the secretary-general of the UN – this time to prevent the digital governance body from forming. The secretary-general was approached for comment but had not replied at the time of publication. Here is the full article.

Stakeholder Capitalism defined by McKinsey

Stakeholder Capitalism by McKinsey

The McKinsey Global Institute concluded that those with a long-term view—something that is essential to stakeholder capitalism—outperformed the rest in earnings, revenue, investment, and job growth. Other McKinsey research found that companies with strong environmental, social, and governance (ESG) norms recorded higher performance and credit ratings; other research has found that such companies perform better during crises.

Has The World Health Organization (WHO) Lost All Credibility?

If you read the almost 30,000+ comments on this WHO propaganda page you can see that ship is slowly turning or maybe even sinking. This is not informed consent and they have NO DATA to back this up. The Facebook WHO page has also lost control of censorship.

The WHO doesn't provide any data or help about how to treat this disease like many doctors are doing around the World. I think you are going to see more governments start focusing on treatments alongside vaccines using repurposed and genetic drugs like many other countries are doing (Ex India and Sweden)

Bill & Melinda Gates Funded an MIT "Quantum Dots" Project

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded an MIT "quantum dots" project to track vaccines and could be delivered to the skin to record vaccinations.

Conspiracy theories need just the right ingredients to take off within a population, and the COVID-19 pandemic has been a breeding ground for them. A Pew Research Center survey recently asked people if they had heard the theory that the COVID-19 outbreak was intentionally planned by people in power. Seventy-one percent of U.S. adults said they had. And a third of those respondents said it was "definitely" or "probably" true.

One version of this theory goes something like this: The COVID-19 pandemic is part of a strategy conceived by global elites — such as Bill Gates — to roll-out vaccinations with tracking chips that would later be activated by 5G, the technology used by cellular networks.

Residents of Palm Beach County, Fla., cited it in a county commissioner's hearing in late June when voicing their opposition to mandatory mask enforcement. "Six feet ... is military protocol. You're trying to get people to train them, so when the cameras, the 5G comes out, what? They are going to scan everybody? We've got to get scanned? We've got to get temperature? ... Are you insane?" asked Cristina Gomez, one of the residents who attended the hearing. She even mentioned Gates by name, asking the commissioners why he is not in jail.

Molly, 24, who lives in Kentucky and asked that her last name not be used, said earlier this spring, her sister told her she did not intend to get the COVID-19 vaccine because she believed it contained microchips. Molly said she was shocked.

"I was like, what are you talking about? That's not true. And she's like, 'Oh well, you know so much about science.' I'm like, I know that there's no microchips in vaccines." She said the conversation spiraled into a fight. "Then I just went upstairs and cried because we are best friends. And now since this, we basically haven't talked about COVID or what's going on at all."

Otis Hart, 42, in New York City sought the help of a tinnitus therapist in May following an ear injury. At the end of his session, Hart shared that he was looking into getting a better Internet connection. "[My therapist] said that things like 5G [are] responsible for some terrible things going on," Hart said. "And he connected 5G with the coronavirus pandemic." Hart said he stopped seeing him after this appointment.

NPR talked to more than a dozen people who said they had similar experiences. So how did this particular theory come to be?

The first ingredient of a good conspiracy is a plausible element. Not one that's necessarily true, just plausible. In this case, the tracking chips. In December, a team of Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers published a paper in the medical journal Science Translational Medicine detailing how something called "quantum dots" could be delivered to the skin to record vaccinations.

Kevin McHugh, now an assistant professor of bioengineering at Rice University and the lead researcher on the project, said he's baffled by the idea that his project involves tracking chips. "There's no microchips at all," he said. "I don't even know where that comes from. All the quantum dots [do is] produce light."

The technology, tested on rats, has not yet been tested on humans. McHugh said the dot signals a patient has received a vaccine in an effort to keep an accurate record.

"It is really difficult to determine who has received what vaccines in the developing world because there is not good record-keeping," McHugh said. "So the idea is, can we actually have something that could inform a health care worker what vaccines have been administered and therefore which ones are still needed?"

Funding for the project was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which brings us to the second ingredient of a good conspiracy theory: a real person, someone powerful — and rich.

Kate Starbird, an associate professor at the University of Washington, who has studied misinformation during crisis events, said conspiracy theories use the same elements and plug in different actors.

"A rich person controls the world and they want to do bad things so they can continue controlling the world," she said. "Sometimes it's George Soros. Now it's Bill Gates. So, they just move that person over."

But why Gates this time?

Steven Brill is the founder of NewsGuard, a company that tracks false information. He said there are two reasons: The Gates Foundation funds global vaccination research and drives, and Gates is the co-founder of Microsoft Corp.

"So you have the anti-vaxxer movement targeting Bill Gates as well as the anti-tech movement," Brill said.

The anti-tech movement brings us to the final ingredient of a good conspiracy theory: an element that makes it go viral. In this case, the fear of 5G and the power of social media.

Joseph Downing, a fellow at the London School of Economics, studied the origins of the 5G conspiracy theory on social media and said he and his colleagues were able to track down the exact account that turned this conspiracy theory into a trending topic on Twitter.

The account was @5gcoronavirus19, which sent out 303 tweets in seven days.

"So you've got somebody here who understands a way of, in effect, kind of manipulating the social media landscape," Downing said.

It's unclear who operated the @5gcoronavirus19 account, which has since been taken down. But it managed to create such momentum that other platforms picked it up from there. Downing said someone doesn't need to have a huge following to do that; they just need to know how the algorithm works.

"One thing that we found that was really important was that people were tagging President Trump in their tweets. And that was enough to gain traction," he said.

Enough traction that more than 70 cellphone towers were set on fire in the United Kingdom in April and May because of their alleged link to the spread of the virus, Mobile UK, which represents Britain's four mobile operators, told Business Insider in May.

"In the [time of] COVID-19, when we can see [that] a large number of people begin to believe these things and take actions that are harmful to either themselves or their communities — then those theories are translated into harm," Starbird said.

And experts such as Brill and Downing agree: A society so divided because of misinformation can lead to disruptions in elections, health care and even create distrust in the entire democratic system.

Disclosure: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a supporter of NPR.

DOJ’s Antitrust Case vs Google is Biggest in 20 Years

After the DOJ's 1998 suit against Microsoft, this suit has the potential to be the most important antitrust case against a technology firm in over 20 years.

It is claimed that U.S. antitrust enforcers are crafting a complaint against Google (and its parent company, Alphabet). This week, the Justice Department and a broad group of state attorneys general are meeting and could file suit very soon. While it would allegedly concentrate on the dominance of Google in online advertisement and search, the lawsuit may cover many other aspects of the actions of Google, including its dominance in mobile operating systems and web browsers. After the DOJ's 1998 suit against Microsoft, this suit has the potential to be the most important antitrust case against a technology firm in over 20 years.

In other words, almost all Internet users have a stake in the results of this case, all users of Google Apps, and anyone who watches Google-brokered ads. That's why it has to be performed correctly. It should cover more than just advertisement markets and also concentrate on the consumer strength of Google's search, browser, and smartphone OS. And the antitrust authorities should seek intelligent solutions that go beyond money harm, including breakups and interoperability with competing goods, all while being vigilant in protecting the interests of free expression and privacy of consumers that will eventually be caught up in the mix. Like many, we worry that it might not go well if everything is hurried, so we advise the enforcers to take the time they need to do it right while understanding that there is continual harm.

The Significance of a “Big Case” Antitrust

U.S. government antitrust cases have an important place in the history of innovation, and there is a fair argument to be made that they provided breathing space for innovation even though they did not conclude with a court order to break up a company. The DOJ's case against IBM started in 1969, went to trial in 1975, and was withdrawn in 1982, for "monopolizing or threatening to monopolize the general-purpose market for electronic digital computer systems." While the case did not end with a court-ordered remedy, as it had squashed other rivals for decades, a decade-plus of a public investigation into IBM's business practices arguably stopped the company from squashing nascent rivals like Microsoft. That outcome probably helped start the 1980s personal computer revolution, fuelled by various companies' ideas beyond "Big Blue."

The government's suit against AT&T, which had for much of the twentieth century maintained a legally recognized monopoly on telephone service in the U.S., almost ended the same way as the IBM suit. US v. AT&T was filed in 1974 and by 1982 it had not reached a verdict. "But years of scrutiny, coupled with the emergence of potential rivals who were itching to enter telecommunications service and related markets, led the leadership of AT&T to consent to a split, allowing the" Baby Bells "and technology-focused spinoffs to innovate in data communications and Internet growth in ways that" Ma Bell "could not. With a monolithic AT&T still controlling who could link to telephone networks and what devices they could use, it is difficult to foresee the Internet entering mainstream use in the 1990s. Even though the AT&T heirs finally re-assembled themselves, we still have the creativity unleashed by the split.

Also, a boon to creativity was the 1998 lawsuit against Microsoft over its exclusion of rival Web browser applications from PCs. At the time, Microsoft's AT&T-style merger, perhaps breaking its operating system and software application divisions into different businesses, was a distinct possibility. The trial court actually ordered exactly that. D.C. On appeal, Instead, Circuit opposed a split and directed Microsoft to comply with existing restrictions on its conduct against rival software vendors and PC producers. Again, this appeared to be anything less than a shining accomplishment. But Microsoft shelved plans to smash a little-known search firm called Google in the face of ongoing surveillance of its actions against competitors.

Google grew into so many Internet-related markets two decades later that its place in many of them remains unassailable. Google has been able to buy out or push out almost any company that dares to compete in a number of markets with it. Once again, the engine of disruptive innovation has broken down, and a brave, thoughtful federal and state enforcers' antitrust challenge could be just the thing to help restart it.

Look at the entire Alphabet, not just advertisements

Look at the whole alphabet, not just ads. News reports indicate that Google's litigation will concentrate on the domination of web advertising by the corporation, which is alleged to depress publishers' ad revenues. The suit may also discuss the behavior of Google against rivals in search markets, such as travel and search for goods. In order to see how it contributed to the acquisition of monopoly control in different markets, it should also look at Google's history of mergers and acquisitions, such as the 2007 purchase of advertising company DoubleClick.

Antitrust enforcers will go high on the reach of the complaint. Consumers will not benefit much from a suit that questions Google's actions in the advertisement markets alone. Although the vast collection of Google data on the browsing habits and preferences of users, extracted from its ad networks, causes great harm to customers, it is not yet clear if hundreds of smaller rivals in the ad-tech market, some of which are extremely shady, would be better user privacy stewards. The response here includes both antitrust and much-needed new regulations on privacy. That's going to assist customers around the board.

Google's leveraging of its current market dominance in search, Web browsing (Chrome), and mobile operating systems (Android) should also be questioned by the DOJ and states to keep out competition. The lawsuit should also question whether the collection and control of user data by Google through so many applications and computers, plus data from millions of websites linked to Google's advertisement networks, gives it an advantage that causes anti-trust scrutiny in other markets. These are, in part, novel and challenging antitrust law arguments. Yet enforcers are expected to target hard. Success in keeping Google responsible for its use of monopoly power can help the courts and probably Congress adjust antitrust law for the digital era, even if it does not succeed entirely. It can also help create a bulwark against the Internet's further centralization. And as history indicates, even a suit that eventually does not lead to a split will help make room for creativity outside the walls of today's tech giant from different outlets.

Have a large remedies toolbox: interoperability, innovation follow-on, laws of conduct, and breakups

By now, it is clear that antitrust law enforcers ought to seek solutions beyond money damages. Without altering their actions drastically, Google and Alphabet are big enough to treat almost every fine as a cost of doing business. As part of the litigation, a court-ordered breakup of Alphabet could also be seriously considered, perhaps an order to separate parts of Google's advertising company or to unravel Google's most controversial acquisitions.

In the government's quiver of solutions, however, breakups should not be the only bolt. Asking Google to allow its rivals to create interoperable goods would strike at the root of Google's monopoly issue and could be an easier lift. As we've seen across several examples, building products that can link to current, dominant products, without permission from the incumbent vendor, can be a powerful antimonopoly tool. It can help bring users back into power.

That may mean ordering Google not to interfere with products that block Google-distributed advertising and monitoring in Google's case. Allowing ad- and tracker-blocking technology to thrive will allow consumers to shape the ad-tech industry by supporting businesses that obtain less user information and are more accountable for the information they have. It could also promote innovation in that market (note: one of those innovations is the Privacy Badger of the EFF, but this could benefit several services). Google will have to fight for users' views and clicks in that case by protecting their privacy.

Interoperability requirements implemented as an antitrust remedy or as part of a settlement mitigate many of the concerns that come with more generalized mandates for technology because orders can be crafted to accommodate the technologies and procedures of a particular organization. To ensure enforcement, it may require constant monitoring and help prevent security concerns or other problems that may occur from a one-size-fits-all approach.

A perfect chance to start solving the issues of the monopoly control of Big Tech is the pending litigation against Google. If enforcers act boldly, they will set new precedents for antitrust that will stimulate competition across high-tech markets. As a spur to progress and a monopoly solution, they should also use this opportunity to advance interoperability.

Who are Google's Lawyers?

Google has had a handful of familiar outside lawyers since the companies have dealt with several antitrust court appearances over the past few years.

In a pending private antitrust lawsuit accusing the search giant of monopolizing the online search advertising market, Google has turned to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. When the department questioned the company's search activities, Wilson Sonsini also helped Google fight off the FTC back in 2011. Without penalizing Google, the FTC closed the case in 2013.

Google is also a client of Paul Weiss, who, during the DOJ's antitrust trial, represented Microsoft for Bill Gates' empire.

For most foreign investigations, including the EU's nearly $ 3 billion antitrust fine accusing the corporation of rigging its search results to benefit its own goods, Google has relied on Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. In his almost 13-year antitrust case brought by the DOJ, Cleary also represented IBM Corp. In 1982, the government finally dismissed the lawsuit.

Google's likely lawyers will include: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, Kasowitz Benson Torres, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Williams & Connonlly, King & Spalding

Facebook Bans Ads Questioning Safety Of COVID-19 Vaccines

Clearly, Mark Zuckerberg had enough of being dragged in front of Congress and hectored by a gang of senior citizens, and listening to the ACLU leader slam his business as a vessel for violent hate speech. Since Facebook has done a full 180 on its stance on speech, especially sensitive political speech, over the past few months. Apparently, Zuckerberg was shaken by his non-interventionist stance by declaring that during the last week of the campaign, FB would not allow new political advertising, and only yesterday by declaring that Facebook would clamp down on its site on holocaust deniers.

Salvos against QAnon and electoral disinformation have also been launched by the organization, thus taking an active approach to political advertisements and political material in general.

And as global authorities try to persuade the public that, despite the expedited approval process, a potential COVID-19 vaccine would be safe to take, Facebook has agreed to give them a hand by deleting all material that allows users to refuse to take a vaccine. In a blog post published Tuesday, it set out the latest global agenda.

Facebook would draw the line and enable users who argue against "mandatory vaccination," a valid political stance the company said was (not a claim made in "poor faith" as some on the left insist), and post as usual. They quoted an instance of a Virginia state lawmaker who posted "STOP FORCED CORONAVIRUS VACCINATIONS."

Although the above advertising will be permissible under the new legislation, it will forbid advertisements that directly prevent people from taking vaccines by presenting the vaccines as ineffective or dangerous.

"If a vaccine is specifically prevented by an ad that advocates for/against legislation or government policy, it will be refused," a CNBC spokesperson wrote. "That includes presenting vaccines as useless, ineffective, dangerous or unhealthy, describing vaccines for diseases as harmless, or as harmful or deadly ingredients in vaccines."

Facebook also plans to push recommendations on how and when to get the flu vaccine for all individuals.

There is no coincidence with the timing. Analysts at Goldman Sachs wrote in a recent research note that confidence in the vaccine may be a significant obstacle to its eventual eradication. "We agree that the greatest obstacle will be to persuade the broad population to take the vaccine to effectively minimize the burden of disease and virus circulation to very low levels. Our basic case assumes such large acceptance, but this will probably entail a safe and very efficient vaccine, faith in the mechanism of approval and rollout, no out-of-pocket costs, and efficient public and community campaigns."

And news about JNJ 's recent halt was definitely not encouraging, especially because the public was still not aware of what was going on in the US with the halted AstraZeneca-Oxford trials.

As we have noted, the decision of Facebook comes as Bill Gates challenges Trump's FDA's authority, and Kamala Harris tells the American people that she "will not take" a vaccine approved by Trump.

Throughout Africa, a host of other terribly paralyzing and debilitating diseases have been reported in vaccines developed by Gates but never tested on humans until used in Africa.

This is India's medical study addressing the paralysis arising from the vaccinations of Gates, affecting 450,000 children and babies for life. This is why Gates was sued for his Crimes Against Humanity by India. The last page summarizes the damage sustained by 1/2 million young Indians. The remainder of the study is a very technical, accurate, and horrible medical report.

Because of his Crimes Against Humanity carried out with his vaccines around the world, India, Russia and China have barred Gates from entering or using his vaccines for life.

Who Is Getting Wealthier During Covid-19?

Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos getting rich during Covid-19

Billionaires have a combined wealth of more than $3.6 trillion, and their collective wealth will soar by $1,130 between 1990 and 2020. Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett had the second-largest increase in their wealth during the pandemic. Bezos and Zuckerberg have added $35 billion and $25 billion to their fortunes, respectively. In total, the 20 richest people in the United States, including Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, and Buffett, as well as the rest of the world's ten largest billionaires, had a combined wealth of $3.6 trillion by August 5, 2020.

This makes sense as retail is getting killed and Amazon benefits and Bill Gates gets to sell more vaccines to the world. Meanwhile, 40 million Americans filed for unemployment during the pandemic, but billionaires saw their net worth increase by half a trillion dollars.

First, the government disproportionately gave more aid to banks and corporations. In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was signed into law, creating a $700 billion program to purchase devalued assets from banks. This was called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Later, President Obama would direct $75 billion in funds from TARP to help reduce interest payments for homeowners. That means homeowners received around 10% of the direct relief that banks and corporations did.

And this leads to reason No. 2. When the stock market bounced back, the unequal bailouts meant that the wealthy still had money on hand to invest and thus profit, while the middle and lower classes did not. In 2008, the Federal Reserve lowered short-term interest rates to near zero. They would remain that low for nearly a decade. This paved the way for a historic bull market on Wall Street that began in 2009 and lasted until March 2020, when the pandemic hit. The Ponzi scheme continues with no restructuring of bad behavior insight