Manufactured AIDS; The True Story

Leonard Horowitz book for free…

Package Inserts Vaccine index

Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine Warning Insert (paste and copy)

New Vaccines on the Horizon

U.S. Government Withholds Vaccine Injury Data: Rolls Out “Vaccine Confidence Plan” Instead

The US Government Has Paid out $3 Billion to Vaccine-Injured Americans

The CDC Military-like Vaccine Extremist Program to Vaccinate Every Child in America

Bill Gates, Vaccines & Depopulation Agenda; The Message Cannot Get Any Clearer!

State Declares You Have No Right to Choose Natural Health over Dangerous Vaccines w/ Chips and WI – 38 Injected into your Children

Natural News tests flu vaccine for heavy metals, finds 25,000 times higher mercury level than EPA limit for water

Another hidden secret in Obamacare “RFID Chip Implants”

SB 277 and Immunocontraception: Forced Sterilization

Videos: The Courage to See, the Power to Choose” with Joanna Macy, PhD

Top Merck Vaccine Scientist Dr Maurice Hilleman Openly Admits the Presence of Deadly SV40 and AIDS

What This Former Merck Salesman Knows About Vaccines That You Don’t Know

Infowars Confronts Bill Gates of Paralyzing Vaccine Program in India

Cyborg Soldiers, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotic Mass Surveillance May be Here Sooner Than You Think

By Carolanne Wright

Contributing writer for Wake Up World

Straight out of the science fiction film The Terminator, a 72-page Pentagon document lays out their plan for the future of combat and war, which will utilize artificial intelligence (or AI), robotics, information technology as well as biotechnology.

Proponents of advanced technology — such as robot soldiers and artificial intelligence — argue both can be made ethically superior to humans, where issues of rape, pillaging or the destroying of towns in fits of rage would be drastically reduced, if not eliminated. Many in the science community are casting a weary eye toward this technology, however, warning that it can easily surpass human control, leading to unpredictable — and even catastrophic — consequences.

Defense Innovation Initiative — The Future of War

The Department of Defense (DoD) has announced the United States will be entering a brave new world of automated combat in a little over a decade, where wars will be completely fought using advanced weaponized robotic systems. We’ve already had a glimpse of what’s to come with the use of drones. But, according to the DoD, we haven’t seen anything yet.

In a quest to establish “military-technological superiority”, the Pentagon ultimately has its sights set on monopolizing “transformational advances” in robotics, artificial intelligence and information technology — otherwise known as the Defense Innovation Initiative, a plan to identify and develop pioneering technological breakthroughs for use in the military.

Disturbingly, a new study from the National Defense University — a higher education institution funded by the Pentagon — has urged the DoD to take drastic action in order to avoid the downfall of US military might, even though the report also warns that accelerating technological advances will “flatten the world economically, socially, politically, and militarily, it could also increase wealth inequality and social stress.”

The NDU report explores several areas where technological advances could benefit the military — one of which is mass collection of data from social media platforms that is then analyzed by artificial intelligence instead of humans. Another is “embedded systems [in] automobiles, factories, infrastructure, appliances and homes, pets, and potentially, inside human beings, [where] the line between conventional robotics and intelligent everyday devices will become increasingly blurred.” These systems will help the government to monitor individuals and the population and “will provide detection and predictive analytics.”

Armies of “Kill Bots that can autonomously wage war” are also a real possibility as unmanned robotic systems are becoming increasingly intelligent and less expensive to manufacture. These robots could be placed in civilian life as well, to execute “surveillance, infrastructure monitoring, police telepresence, and homeland security applications.”

To counteract public outcry about autonomous robots having the capacity to kill on their own, the authors recommend the Pentagon should be “highly proactive” in establishing “it is not perceived as creating weapons systems without a ‘human in the loop.’”

Strong AI, which simulates human cognition — including self-awareness, sentience and consciousness — is just on the horizon, some say as early as the 2020s.

But not everyone is over the moon about these advances, especially where AI is concerned. Leaders in the field of technology, journalists and inventors are all sounding the alarm about the devastating consequences of AI technology that’s allowed to flourish unchecked.

AI Technology — What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

As the DoD charges ahead with its plan to dominate the military and surveillance sphere with unbridled advances in technology, many are questioning the serious ramifications of such a path.

Journalist R. Michael Warren writes:

“I’m with Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk. Artificial intelligence (A.I.) promises great benefits. But it also has a dark side. And those rushing to create robots smarter than humans seem oblivious to the consequences.

Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google, predicts that by 2029 computers will be able to outsmart even the most intelligent humans. They will understand multiple languages and learn from experience.

Once they can do that, we face two serious issues.

First, how do we teach these creatures to tell right from wrong — in our own self defense?

Second, robots will self-improve faster than we slow evolving humans. That means outstripping us intellectually with unpredictable outcomes.” [source]

During a conference of AI experts in 1999, a poll was given as to when they thought the Turing test (where computers surpass humans in intelligence) would occur. The general thought was about 100 years. Many believed it could never be achieved. Today, Kurzweil thinks we are already at the brink of intellectually superior computers.


British theoretical physicist and Cambridge University professor Stephen Hawking doesn’t mince words about the dangers of artificial intelligence:

“I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race,” Hawking told the BBC. “Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on it’s own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate.” He adds, “Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.”

At the MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics department’s Centennial Symposium in October 2015, Tesla founder Elon Musk issued a stark warning about unregulated development of AI:

“I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I were to guess like what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that. So we need to be very careful with the artificial intelligence. Increasingly scientists think there should be some regulatory oversight maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon. In all those stories where there’s the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, it’s like yeah he’s sure he can control the demon. Didn’t work out.”

Furthermore, in a tweet posted by Musk in 2014, he thinks “We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially more dangerous than nukes.” In the same year, he said on CNBC that he believes the possibility of a Terminatorlike scenario could actually come to pass.

Likewise, British inventor Clive Sinclair believes artificial intelligence will be the downfall of mankind:

“Once you start to make machines that are rivaling and surpassing humans with intelligence, it’s going to be very difficult for us to survive,” he told the BBC. “It’s just an inevitability.”

Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates agrees.

“I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence,” he says. “First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned.”

That said, Gates’ Microsoft Research has designated “over a quarter of all attention and resources” to artificial intelligence development, whereas Musk has invested in AI companies in order to “keep an eye on where the technology is headed”.

Related reading: AI Building AI – Is Humanity Losing Control Over Artificial Intelligence?

Article sources:

Recommended articles by Carolanne Wright:

About the author:

Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness and joyful orientation for over 13 years

Through her website she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision. Follow Carolanne on FacebookTwitter and Pinterest.

Internationally recognised independent Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett will be speaking at three events in the UK in January and February.

1) Tuesday 30 January 2018 – Imperialism on Trial, Waterside Theatre, Derry. With Vanessa BeeleyDr Marcos Papadopoulos, Neil Clark, former British ambassador to Syria Peter Ford and Prof. Piers Robinson. More details here. Booking here.

2) Wednesday 31 January 2018 – Imperialism on Trial: Exposing War Propaganda, Barnsbury Centre, 12 Jays Street, Islington, London, N1 0FE. More details and booking here.

3) Thursday 1 February 2018 – Syria, Lies and Videotape, Cheese & Grain, Frome, Somerset. With Kevork Almassian. Flyer here and below. Booking here.
Canadian journo totally crushes MSM reporter on what’s actually going on in Syria

Above excerpt from Q&A following Eva Bartlett’s December 2016 speech to the UN has gained almost 4.5 million views

Internationally recognised independent Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett will be speaking at three events in the UK in January and February. – A Treasure Trove of Industry Secrets

An online database of corporate memos, meeting minutes, and letters related to a variety of toxic substances aims to augment public health and safety.

The historians Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner took notice when, in 2004, a colleague wrote a 41-page report lambasting their work. The two New York professors (Markowitz at the City University of New York and Rosner at Columbia University) had spent decades working together at the intersection of history and public health, and much of their research focused on the consequences of corporate wrongdoing, so attacks weren’t uncommon — or even surprising.

This one, though, was particularly scathing.

The database is “a rich new resource for researchers, journalists, and public health advocates.”

Philip Scranton, a historian at Rutgers University, had taken aim at their book “Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution” — and at Markowitz in particular. Scranton accused him of everything from “overgeneralization and failure to corroborate” to “selectively appropriat[ing] information,” among a list of other alleged misdeeds.

Rosner and Markowitz’s peers quickly came to their defense, calling Scranton a “hired gun” for the chemical industry. (Scranton had in fact been hired by a group of companies to review two chapters in the book, along with a report Markowitz had prepared for a court case involving job-related chemical exposure.) But Rosner and Markowitz knew there would be more rounds to the stressful, time consuming, and seemingly never-ending fight.

“We didn’t know how to respond,” said Rosner.

One of Rosner’s undergraduate students, Merlin Chowkwanyun, gave them the answer. Why not, he asked, just post all of their source documents — secret company memos, the minutes of internal meetings, industry letters, and more — online and let people decide for themselves? Rosner and Markowitz agreed. Together with Chowkwanyun, they started by creating a website and uploading the maligned chapters of “Deceit and Denial,” with each footnote linked to the original supporting documents in their entirety.

“It was an incredibly liberating moment,” Rosner recalls, adding that Chowkwanyun had “taught two old guys the possibilities of what can be done with the web.”

Since then, Chowkwanyun has expanded that early effort into what is now called, a searchable public archive of the many documents that Rosner and Markowitz have gathered in their research over the years, as well as an ever-expanding host of others. The site officially launched last Friday with an initial 20 million pages of material focused on six toxic substances: asbestos, benzene, lead, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), polyvinyl chloride, and silica, and millions more pages are coming. “There is no other toxic substances database like this,” said Chowkwanyun, who now teaches at Columbia.

It took some time to get here. After completing his undergraduate degree, Chowkwanyun went on to graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania, and while he kept thinking about the work he’d done with Markowitz and Rosner, he wasn’t able to focus on the project in earnest until after he finished his Ph.D. and started his postdoctoral work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. And even then, there were substantial hurdles. Many of the documents came un-scanned, and many others weren’t in the right format to be read and searched electronically. The first issue was solvable with many hours spent at a scanner. The second was more stubborn.

Chowkwanyun estimated that more than 5 million pages needed to be converted to “optical character recognition” (OCR) format, and commercial software took about 30 seconds per page. At that rate, it would have taken him nearly five years of 24/7 operations to complete. Far too slow. So, Chowkwanyun began tinkering with natural language processing technology and UW-Madison’s high-speed computer to develop a faster method. After about a year, he had found one. A recent batch of about 1.5 million pages only required about three days to convert to OCR, “which was nothing,” he said.

A test version of the website went live last February, with about 100,000 fully searchable pages. (In some other systems only the document titles are indexed, not the text on the page). Chowkwanyun has spent the last few months working out the kinks in the site. Some of those have been additions, such as the inclusion of a bookmarking button. Most, though, have been subtractions.

“We originally had a much more elaborate set of features,” he said. But they found that users preferred simplicity, and that a more streamlined site also performed better on mobile devices. “It goes back to the idea of keeping things as slim as possible.”

The project does have similarities to the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents maintained by the University of California San Francisco — an archive of tobacco company advertising, manufacturing plans, marketing campaigns, scientific research, and political activities — as well as The Poison Papers collection, a project of The Bioscience Resource Project and The Center for Media and Democracy that does much the same with the chemical and pesticide industries.

But, Chowkwanyun said, ToxicDocs is designed to be broader in scope and content, as well as much easier for laypeople, like journalists and community members, to use. The goal is not only to take the wind out of critics’ sails, but also to encourage a deeper public exploration of the documents. The hope is that it could foster a better understanding of the industries, their impact on communities, and perhaps even lead to new discoveries.

That’s what happened with the tobacco documents, said Susan Polan, who is with the American Public Health Association and has decades of advocacy experience. There are still new tobacco finds to this day, she says, and the same potential exists with ToxicDocs, which she described as user-friendly. “That offers a phenomenal opportunity to the public-health community.”

For his part, Chowkwanyun is careful to differentiate ToxicDocs from sites like WikiLeaks, which publishes confidential or personal information often provided by anonymous sources. All the documents on ToxicDocs, he said, are already publicly available. The site just centralizes what would otherwise be scattered in courtrooms and law offices around the country.

The hope is that the site could foster a better understanding of the industries and their impact on communities.

With the official launch last week, the range of documents on ToxicDocs is expansive. There are notes from a 1969 Monsanto meeting where the company discusses plans to “sell the hell out of [PCBs].” There’s another document, from 1973, that shows the chemical industry debating whether it would be “illegal” to withhold the findings of a medical study from the government. There are some half a million more in the archive.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, is a staunch supporter of the project. When he was his state’s attorney general in the early 2000s, he worked with Markowitz and Rosner on a case against the lead paint industry. They’ve kept in touch since, and Whitehouse is excited about the doors that ToxicDocs might open. The new database combines “the reach of discovery with the capabilities of big data technology to provide a rich new resource for researchers, journalists, and public health advocates,” he said in a statement. “Unlocking the secrets of corporate archives can level the field between polluters and victims of industrial contamination.”

Of course, the potential impact of ToxicDocs is still largely theoretical. The earlier iterations were not heavily publicized and the bulk of the documents were only uploaded recently. It will take time for people to comb through them. But Chowkwanyun is already looking ahead, and hopes that the site will continue to grow and adapt. In addition to Markowitz and Rosner’s documents, he says, the archive could eventually include others. For example, he’s currently processing documents about the Flint, Michigan water crisis released through Freedom of Information Act requests.

Rosner and Markowitz would love to see the site thrive as well. But, for them, it’s also becoming the refuge they’d first hoped for. Instead of having to defend themselves to every critic, or respond to every document request, they have started referring people to the website. They thank Chowkwanyun for that.

The duo had always wanted to make the material available to the public, Rosner said. “But we didn’t know how.”

Tik Root is a freelance journalist whose work has been published by The Washington Post, Newsweek, The New Yorker, and PBS, among other outlets.