The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has an initiative called the Theory of Mind program. This effort is designed to give national security decision-makers the ability to model, simulate, and ultimately anticipate the intentions and behaviors of adversaries using a combination of advanced algorithms and human expertise.
At its core, the program aims to:
Build algorithmic models that “decompose” adversary strategies into elemental behaviors.
Use massive data—signals intelligence, open-source information, even social media—to create high-fidelity “avatars” of enemy decision-makers.
Simulate possible responses to a range of U.S. and allied actions, exploring which ones best deter, incentivize, or nudge adversaries toward preferred outcomes.
Integrate insights from psychological profiling and machine learning to continually update these models as real-world conditions shift.
The promise is profound: a system that doesn’t just predict what an adversary might do, but actively guides policymakers toward courses of action that shape the adversary’s decision calculus—minimizing escalation and maximizing U.S. strategic advantage.
DARPA’s Theory of Mind program fundamentally changes how conflicts are managed. Decision-makers can run gaming scenarios at unprecedented detail and speed, customizing incentives or deterrents tailored to both cultural and individual psychologies. Risks of unintended escalation might be sharply reduced, while opportunities to “push the line” without crossing it become clearer.
Theory of Mind Warfare Turned on the American Public in 2020
The same tools originally designed for military use were later deployed against the American (and global) public in 2020
AI-powered behavioral analytics, inspired by military-grade “theory of mind” models, were strategically employed during the COVID-19 pandemic to not just inform but actively shape public perception, sentiment, and compliance—creating a continuous feedback loop between government actions and public psychology. These systems quietly moved the world’s response from reactive to adaptive, fundamentally influencing how populations experienced and responded to the scamdemic.
How These Systems Shaped Public Minds
1. Real-Time Sentiment Analysis and Information Targeting AI-powered platforms actively monitored social media, news, and digital conversations to track shifts in public mood, anxieties, and resistance to emerging health policies. These tools analyzed tone, emotional context, and response patterns following government announcements, often providing immediate feedback to policymakers on how their messaging was being received.
2. Tailored Messaging and Adaptive Communication Insights from these platforms allowed authorities to:
Refine government communication strategies
Push “approved” narratives to counter “misinformation”
Adjust messaging in real time to allay public fears, address misconceptions, or reinforce confidence in health measures such as lockdowns or vaccines
3. Behavioral Nudges and Targeted Interventions. Governments, aided by behavioral insights teams and AI analysts, designed “nudge” interventions—such as targeted text reminders, default scheduling of vaccine appointments, and personalized risk feedback—to increase uptake of desired behaviors. Rapid A/B testing determined which messages or policy tweaks worked best for specific populations.
4. Feedback Loops for Policy Calibration. Behavioral and sentiment data were continuously fed back into policy decision-making. If public adherence waned or opposition spiked (visible through sentiment tracking), messaging and interventions could be swiftly recalibrated to regain support or mitigate disinformation spikes.
5. Data-Driven Misinformation Management. AI-driven platforms scanned for and flagged viral misinformation. Rapid response teams could then deploy counter-messaging or media campaigns—often through the same platforms—using knowledge of which narratives resonated with hesitant demographics.
Covid Was Just the Beginning: The Theory of Mind at Work in Recent Theaters of War
Top US virologist Ralph Baric engineered the Covid-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 in his lab at the University of North Carolina as part of his work in connection with the 2018 DEFUSE funding proposal. That’s the story that’s been going round the internet for some months now (and not just in alternative media) and it all looks very damning for Baric and those connected with his research.
Details of the DEFUSE project were first leaked by Major Joseph Murphy, an employee of US military research agency DARPA, in the summer of 2021 and further details of earlier drafts have come to light this month thanks to public record requests from U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).
In DEFUSE, Baric proposed to create a virus that was, to most intents and purposes, SARS-CoV-2. The proposal included inserting a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus spike protein, an order for the restrictive enzyme BsmBI, the search for a binding domain that would infect ACE2 human receptors and a requirement for a viral genome around 25% different to SARS.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus contains a furin cleavage site in its spike protein, its genome includes the restrictive enzyme BsmBI, it has a receptor binding domain finely tuned to infect the ACE2 human receptor and its genome is around 25% different to SARS. A number of virologists have said that such features make SARS-CoV-2 a smoking gun for an engineered virus.
Baric obtained a patent for such novel viruses in 2018, just as he was putting DEFUSE together. In DEFUSE he proposed to infect wild Chinese bats with his newly patented viruses.
I spent my career working with the media. If there is one thing I learned, it was not to trust them, ever. The story below just proves my point.
President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, run by Elon Musk, has uncovered stunningly wasteful and offensive spending by the federal government and has been trying to cut that off, even clawing back funding at times.
But a new statement from Musk, on social media, is pushing the outrage to a whole new level, pointing out that the government paid $9 million in a contract for “Active Social Engineering Defense (ASED) Large Scale Social Deception (LSD).”
It is the Liberty Daily that promptly raised questions about the massive expenditure and its reason:
“Many of the proposed Community Notes cite references to programs coordinated by Reuters that focus on fighting ‘disinformation’ and inappropriate social engineering. But just because they claim their motives are positive doesn’t change the fact that they’ve participated in spreading disinformation in the name of ‘stopping’ disinformation. This has been demonstrated clearly by the push to promote ineffective and dangerous COVID jabs. Conspicuously, the contract was for 2018 (before COVID) through 2022 (peak injection time). Why did they have a program set up to fight COVID disinformation before COVID was known to exist? Why were they tasked with social engineering and ‘large scale social deception’ by DARPA? What will DOGE and the Trump administration do about this?”
Musk had referenced a posting from Mario Nawful, who said, “DOGE investigations reveal mysterious Defense Department payments to Reuters for ‘large scale social deception’ project between 2018-2022. While DARPA claims it was for cyber defense, questions swirl about why a news agency received millions for ‘social engineering.’ The revelation comes as other media outlets face scrutiny over federal funding. Source: USASpendingGov,”
“Really this is a military operation, war crimes and atrocities covered up as a health event.”
Perhaps the biggest existential question of our times is where exactly did covid-19 come from?
According to Sasha Latypova, a Russian-American, former pharmaceutical industry research and development executive, and Katherine Watt, a para-legal researcher, and philosopher, it’s an inside job. Covid-19 is an act of bio-warfare perpetrated by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) on the U.S. and worldwide populations in two stages.
The first step was a virus that frightened the living daylights out of people already primed for the next disaster. The second was the rollout of toxic “vaccines” designed to cause further harm and death. “They were designed to be toxic, with intent to cause harm,” Latypova told L4Atv. “It looks like this was a virus created by the U.S. government.”
While the narrative peddled by mainstream media concerning the origins of the pandemic has evolved, starting as a zoonotic virus (One that moves from animals to humans) from a wet market in China to the acknowledgment of the possibility of accidental release of a gain-of-function virus from the Wuhan lab, that may or may not have been funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Latypova and Watt have shared documented research that points to the United States DoD calling the shots.
The rollout of the pandemic and subsequent vaccination campaign has been many years in the making, say the pair. One example of the many that the pair gives is that the DoD issued multiple contracts in Ukraine for covid research and covid countermeasures, some dating back to 2012, others more recently, immediately before the declaration of the pandemic.
In the way that David Martin, underwriter and patent expert, demonstrated intent when in 2021 he traced the history of patents filed for the novel coronavirus by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Moderna, long before the pandemic was declared, Watt has traced the legal framework for the exploitation of the pandemic to limit the freedom of citizens worldwide. “We allowed criminals to write laws for themselves,” she says. “And while it makes no sense at all, it does explain why things unfolded as they did. The basic idea is that public health has been militarized, and the military has been turned into a public health front, or Potemkin Village, such that they are using public health language and laws to actually carry out a military campaign. I would call them DoD weapons.”
The weapons to which Watt is referring are threefold; first was informational – the use of propaganda and censorship. The second was psychological – the use of fear and terrorism. The third was chemical and biological – the widespread use of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, in reality, toxins and pathogens.
“This project has been going on for centuries: globalist and central bankers and many related organizations have been trying to get entire control of people through military and banking programs,” asserts Watt. “They kicked the public health aspect of it into higher gear in the 1930s and 1940s. In the mid-60s, we saw them inducing suicide and homicide by fraudulently labeling poisons as medicines, or as vaccines, or as prophylactics and telling people that submitting to that poisoning process was their civic duty. We saw that during covid with the shorthand for ‘do this or kill your grandma message.’”
The financial control starts at the top with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and cascades down through the financial system, says Watt. “The cornerstone is the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO is not a health organization but a military organization. It is the military arm of the One World Government they are trying to set up. Basically, the International Health Regulations, currently going through another round of amendments to make them worse, called on national governments to strengthen their own domestic laws to fund more programs for surveillance, testing, detention and quarantine, physical control, and forced treatment during international outbreaks of communicable diseases. The pretext they used – it was bankers doing this – was that they needed to protect international trade. The real intent was to transfer sovereignty for government from the national state to the WHO and BIS automatically when a public international health emergency has been declared. Congress and U.S. presidents complied.”
Over time, Congress and one U.S. administration after another have brought in laws, amendments to these laws, and executive orders to whittle away at citizen freedoms. Examples include the Patriot Act, The Homeland Security Act, the National Vaccine Program, the Emergencies Use Authorization, the Public Health Emergencies Platform, and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Program, to say nothing of the use of OTAs (Other Transactions Authority) to issue contracts, all designed to create a legal framework for controlling our lives.
“Trump and Biden passed several further congressional acts, funding to reinforce the structure to build out the program,” asserts Watt. “Government has built a huge public and private funding stream for military lead bio-weapons research and use, eliminated informed consent, by reclassifying people who could potentially be carrying a disease as presumptive national security threats, so that you can do anything you want to them because you are on a war footing.”
While Watt has been pursuing research on the legal framework for the pandemic maneuvers since 2020, her assertions became abundantly clear in April 2022 with a False Claims case brought against Pfizer by Brook Jackson. “It is not a vaccine; it’s a DoD prototype,” says Watt. “Pfizer said they never had to do trials and were never obligated to prove safety or efficacy. And on Oct 4th, 2022, the U.S. govt endorsed that view, basically saying that clinical trials were never material or necessary for the DoD to pay the contractors for producing and distributing the bio-weapons known as covid-19 vaccines.”
When Latypova discovered Watt’s legal research, the whole story began to make sense. As a pharmaceutical specialist with 25 years of experience, she couldn’t understand why no regulatory authorities were reacting to the alarming safety signals produced by the vaccines from the outset. She has used public documents to prove her case.
“I immediately uncovered the huge deficiencies and problems in the development of these biowarfare agents – irregularities from regulatory quality perspectives, manufacturing issues,” says Laypova. “It was very puzzling to me why no regulatory agency in the world was taking any action on any of this – not on adverse events, deaths, horrific side effects. And they took no enforcement on all the manufacturing non-compliance, lack of good laboratory practices, etc. When I found the legal basis for this, the universe immediately started making more sense. Really this is a military operation, war crimes and atrocities covered up as a health event.”
Latypova’s opinion is only further confirmed by the fact that the response to the declaration of the pandemic by the U.S. government was to put the National Security Council (NSC) in charge of covid policy. “This is completely irregular. According to all previous plans, before 2022, Health and Human Services (HHS) was supposed to be in charge, which is reasonable because they are a health agency. Now we have the NSC in charge, and this consists of defense and intelligence heads. They’ve been treating it as an act of war from the beginning; they just didn’t tell people.”
Watch Sasha Latypova, & Katherine Watt, along with fellow big-pharma scientist Philip Altman and LTC (Ret.) Dr. Pete Chambers, following discussion:
I can’t believe this came from Newsweek, a liberal propaganda rag, but yet here is an excerpt:
As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.
I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.
I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on naturalvs. artificial immunity, school closuresand disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness andsafety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.
But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths…..
“As ethics program director and ethics community chair, I was involved in basically all of the pandemic policy drafting, right up until the vaccine mandate,” Kheriaty says.
“Our committee at the Office of the President had done the ventilator triage policy, the vaccine allocation policy. But when it came to the vaccine mandate, it came down from on high and there was no discussion debate. Our committee was not involved in drafting the policy.
I was very concerned about the lack of open discussion and debate. Because of all the sensitive policies that we had developed during the pandemic, this one I thought was going to be the most ethically controversial, problematic and the most publicly fraught.
So, I was puzzled by the fact that we didn’t really have a conversation about it. I published a piece in The Wall Street Journal last year, arguing that vaccine mandates are unethical based on the principle of informed consent, which I teach to all the medical students every year.
This is the principle that an adult of sound mind has the right to decide: what medications or interventions to accept or decline, and they have the right to make this decision on behalf of their children who are not yet old enough to give consent.
I was very concerned that vaccine mandates were just tossing this principle overboard under the guise of, ‘We’re in emergency and so the regular rules don’t apply.’ I think it’s precisely in wartime and crises that it’s all the more important to stand fast and hold onto our ethical principles, because those are the times where we’re most tempted to abandon them. And when you do that, you can often invite disaster.”
“At 14.5 my daughter received the Pfizer vaccine for Corona. It was important for us to give her the vaccine due to low lung capacity due to scoliosis (spinal curvature) that developed from a young age (because of an oncological disease from which she suffered up to two years old). Ten days before the vaccination she underwent surgery that was supposed to improve her leg rest and her posture. It is important to understand that immediately after the same surgery she went and everything was fine. A week after the vaccine she suddenly couldn’t stand or walk and the doctors who tested her said it was a neurological phenomenon related to the vaccine and it would pass. And yet, she worked and restored great within two months. On October 12th [2021] she came back from school, I was shopping with her and she went to sleep. At 4am I walked into her room, she couldn’t fall asleep so I covered her in a blanket and stayed with her until she fell asleep. At 8:30 am I walked into her room and she was no longer alive. Only then did I remember that a few days ago she complained about strong heartbeats and I thought she was probably stressed because of school. I didn’t think for a moment that there was a problem with her heart. There never was.
EcoHealth also had a program called “Predict” that on paper was all about preventing “the next pandemic,” but in actuality was a farce. Lots of money was spent on collecting coronavirus samples, but it was not producing results because it was based on pseudoscience – and Huff confronted Daszak about it.
“Everyone believes that Fauci was responsible for the gain of function work, but the truth of the matter is that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, wink, wink CIA-lite,” Huff explains.
“USAID has a very humanitarian mission set, but it’s also been used by the CIA for 60 years to infiltrate other countries.”
It was USAID money, Huff says, that was used to link U.S.-based scientists working on gain of function research with their counterparts in communist China. This all started in 2012 and ultimately led to the release of covid in 2019.
The rabbit hole is deep with Huff’s revelations, which he unpacks even more during the rest of the interview and also in his book. Huff and Adams also discuss other pertinent matters such as the ongoing supply chain woes, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, the European energy crisis, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and so much more – be sure to watch the full episode at Brighteon.com.
You can also find the latest news about the covid scandal by visiting Plague.info.
“Winners” was perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek: he seemingly means that the “unvaccinated” do not have to worry about the long-term consequences of having the “vaccine” in their bodies since enough data concerning the lack of safety of the “vaccines” have now appeared to demonstrate that, on the balance of risks, the choice not to be “vaccinated” has been vindicated for individuals without comorbidities.
The much more important point was that the “vaccine” was rolled out without long-term testing. Therefore one of two conditions applied. Either no claim could be made with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine” or there was some amazing scientific argument for a once-in-a-lifetime theoretical certainty concerning the long-term safety of this “vaccine.” The latter would be so extraordinary that it might (for all I know) even be a first in the history of medicine. If that were the case, it would have been all that was being talked about by the scientists; it was not. Therefore, the more obvious, first state of affairs, obtained: nothing could be claimed with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine.”
Given, then, that the long-term safety of the “vaccine” was a theoretical crapshoot, the unquantifiable long-term risk of taking it could only be justified by an extremely high certain risk of not taking it. Accordingly, a moral and scientific argument could only be made for its use by those at high risk of severe illness if exposed to COVID. Even the very earliest data immediately showed that I (and the overwhelming majority of the population) was not in the group.
The continued insistence on rolling out the “vaccine” to the entire population when the data revealed that those with no comorbidities were at low risk of severe illness or death from COVID was therefore immoral and ascientific on its face. The argument that reduced transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable as a result of mass “vaccination” could only stand if the long-term safety of the “vaccine” had been established, which it had not. Given the lack of proof of long-term safety, the mass-“vaccination” policy was clearly putting at risk young or healthy lives to save old and unhealthy ones. The policy makers did not even acknowledge this, express any concern about the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, or indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions. Altogether, this was a very strong reason not to trust the policy or the people setting it.
Merck & Co.’s Covid-19 pill is giving rise to new mutations of the virus in some patients, according to a study that underscores the risk of trying to intentionally alter the pathogen’s genetic code.
Some researchers worry the drug may create more contagious or health-threatening variations of Covid, which has killed more than 6.8 million people globally over the past three years.
Mutations linked to the use of Merck’s pill, Lagevrio, have been identified in viral samples taken from dozens of patients, according to a preprint study from researchers in the US and at the Francis Crick Institute, Imperial College London and other UK institutions.
The drug-linked mutations of the virus haven’t been shown to be more immune-evasive or lethal yet, according to the study published Friday without peer review on the medRxiv website. But their very existence highlights what some scientists say are potential risks in wider use of the drug, which was recently cleared in China.
Lagevrio works by creating mutations in the Covid genome that prevent the virus from replicating in the body, reducing the chances it will cause severe illness.
Some scientists had warned before it was authorized in late 2021 that by virtue of how it works, the drug could give rise to mutations that could turn out to be problematic.
Update: after being posted for only a few hours, I seem to have attracted the attention of China with this. I’m sure there is no connection between the two, right.
I noticed my numbers went down when I post Covid anti-vaxx stuff. I don’t care as this is an outlet for me to express what I think is the truth. I’m not sponsored by ad’s (sorry if you get them, it’s not me). I fit the algorithm for my continual posts that have joined with many others to expose the hoax. It goes down every time I put something up against big brother.
Collectively, we the conspiracy theorist are damn near perfect for getting the actual Covid facts and timeline right.
I’ve ditched Google, PayPal, Fake book, Twitter and other means of silencing me, but I found this out, posted below.
The government’s campaign to fight “misinformation” has expanded to adapt military-grade artificial intelligence once used to silence the Islamic State (ISIS) to quickly identify and censor American dissent on issues like vaccine safety and election integrity, according to grant documents and cyber experts.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded several million dollars in grants recently to universities and private firms to develop tools eerily similar to those developed in 2011 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in its Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program.
DARPA said those tools were used “to help identify misinformation or deception campaigns and counter them with truthful information,” beginning with the Arab Spring uprisings in the the Middle East that spawned ISIS over a decade ago.
The initial idea was to track dissidents who were interested in toppling U.S.-friendly regimes or to follow any potentially radical threats by examining political posts on Big Tech platforms.
“Detect, classify, measure and track the (a) formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes), and (b) purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation.
Recognize persuasion campaign structures and influence operations across social media sites and communities.
Identify participants and intent, and measure effects of persuasion campaigns.
Counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.”
Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online has compiled a report detailing how this technology is being developed to manipulate the speech of Americans via the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other organizations.
“One of the most disturbing aspects of the Convergence Accelerator Track F domestic censorship projects is how similar they are to military-grade social media network censorship and monitoring tools developed by the Pentagon for the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism contexts abroad,” reads the report.
“DARPA’s been funding an AI network using the science of social media mapping dating back to at least 2011-2012, during the Arab Spring abroad and during the Occupy Wall Street movement here at home,” Benz told Just The News. “They then bolstered it during the time of ISIS to identify homegrown ISIS threats in 2014-2015.”
The new version of this technology, he added, is openly targeting two groups: Those wary of potential adverse effects from the COVID-19 vaccine and those skeptical of recent U.S. election results.
“The terrifying thing is, as all of this played out, it was redirected inward during 2016 — domestic populism was treated as a foreign national security threat,” Benz said.
“What you’ve seen is a grafting on of these concepts of mis- and disinformation that were escalated to such high intensity levels in the news over the past several years being converted into a tangible, formal government program to fund and accelerate the science of censorship,” he said.
“You had this project at the National Science Foundation called the Convergence Accelerator,” Benz recounted, “which was created by the Trump administration to tackle grand challenges like quantum technology. When the Biden administration came to power, they basically took this infrastructure for multidisciplinary science work to converge on a common science problem and took the problem of what people say on social media as being on the level of, say, quantum technology.
“And so they created a new track called the track F program … and it’s for ‘trust and authenticity,’ but what that means is, and what it’s a code word for is, if trust in the government or trust in the media cannot be earned, it must be installed. And so they are funding artificial intelligence, censorship capacities, to censor people who distrust government or media.”
Benz went on to describe intricate flows of taxpayer cash funding the far-flung, public-private censorship regime. The funds flow from the federal government to universities and NGOs via grant awards to develop censorship technology. The universities or nonprofits then share those tools with news media fact-checkers, who in turn assist private sector tech platforms and tool developers that continue to refine the tools’ capabilities to censor online content.
“This is really an embodiment of the whole of society censorship framework that departments like DHS talked about as being their utopian vision for censorship only a few years ago,” Benz said. “We see it now truly in fruition.”
Members of the media, along with fact-checkers, also serve as arbiters of what is acceptable to post and what isn’t, by selectively flagging content for said social media sites and issuing complaints against specific narratives.
There is a push, said Benz during an appearance on “Just The News No Noise” this week, to fold the media into branches of the federal government in an effort to dissolve the Fourth Estate, in favor of an Orwellian and incestuous partnership to destroy the independence of the press.
The advent of COVID led to “normalizing censorship in the name of public health,” Benz recounted, “and then in the run to the 2020 election, all manner of political censorship was shoehorned in as being okay to be targetable using AI because of issues around mail-in ballots and early voting drop boxes and issues around January 6th.
“What’s happened now is the government says, ‘Okay, we’ve established this normative foothold in it being okay to [censor political speech], now we’re going to supercharge you guys with all sorts of DARPA military grade censorship, weaponry, so that you can now take what you’ve achieved in the censorship space and scale it to the level of a U.S. counterinsurgency operation.'”
One academic institution involved in this tangled web is the University of Wisconsin, which received a $5 million grant in 2022 “for researchers to further develop” its Course Correct program, “a precision tool providing journalists with guidance against misinformation,” according to a press release from the university’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication.”
WiseDex, a private company receiving grants from the Convergence Accelerator Track F, openly acknowledges its mission — building AI tools to enable content moderators at social media sites to more easily regulate speech.
In a promotional video for the company, WiseDex explains how the federal government is subsidizing these efforts to provide Big Tech platforms with “fast, comprehensive and consistent” censorship solutions.
“WiseDex helps by translating abstract policy guidelines into specific claims that are actionable,” says a narrator, “for example, the misleading claim that the COVID-19 vaccine supresses a person’s immune response. Each claim includes keywords associated with the claim in multiple languages … The trust and safety team at a platform can use those keywords to automatically flag matching posts for human review. WiseDex harnesses the wisdom of crowds as well as AI techniques to select keywords for each claim and provide other information in the claim profile.”
WiseDex, in effect, compiles massive databases of banned keywords and empirical claims they then sell to platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Such banned-claims databases are then integrated “into censorship algorithms, so that ‘harmful misinformation stops reaching big audiences,'” according to Benz’s report.
Just the News reached out to the University of Wisconsin and WiseDex for comment, but neither had responded by press time.
The NSF is acting, in one sense, as a kind of cutout for the military, Benz explained, allowing the defense establishment to indirectly stifle domestic critics of Pentagon spending without leaving fingerprints. “Why are they targeting right-wing populists?” he asked. “Because they’re the only ones challenging budgets for [defense agencies].”
He added: “These agencies know they’re not supposed to be doing this. They’re not normally this sloppy. But they won’t ever say the words ‘remove content.'”
The NSF, with an annual budget of around $10 billion, requested an 18.7% increase in appropriations from Congress in its latest budgetary request.
In a statement to Just the News, DARPA said:
“That program ended in March 2017 and was successful in developing a new science of social media analysis to reduce adversaries’ ability to manipulate local populations outside the U.S.
“DARPA’s role is to establish and advance science, technology, research, and development. In doing so we employ multiple measures to safeguard against the collection of personally identifiable information, in addition to following stringent guidelines for research dealing with human subjects. Given the significance of the threat posed by adversarial activities on social media platforms, we are working to make many of the technologies in development open and available to researchers in this space.”
DARPA then followed up with an additional message saying: “As a point of clarification, our response relates only to your questions about the now-complete SMISC program. We are not aware of the NSF research you referenced. If you haven’t already, please contact NSF for any questions related to its research.”
Mike Pozmantier and Douglas Maughan, who serve at NSF as Convergence Accelerator program director and office head, respectively, did not respond to requests for comment.
If you were not vaccinated (which you shouldn’t be), ivermectin reduced your chance of death by 72%. So it was 3 times more effective than the vaccine. But the risk of ivermectin is negligible so the risk-benefit ratio is extremely favorable. Ivermectin has a 3X effect size (benefit) and is more than 100,000X less risky with respect to death risk, killing nobody (compared to over 200,000 people from the vaccine). So it’s the clear choice. It’s the only rational choice.
The Covid crisis is about over (has been for a while, but is being propped up by Pharma, the MSM, Tech and Government agencies) and the government house of cards is losing it’s control. This is worrying for them as an election is approaching and the left’s playbook requires an emergency. Watch how fast Covid gets dropped for the Ukraine now.
So like the above meme, atrocities were committed on innocent citizens by withholding evidence and demeaning the cure that could have ended Covid as early as April 2020, according to Darpa documents. They also show the government was complicit in the gain of function research starting Covid to begin with.
There is no reason to either believe or trust the JAMA report and every reason to believe the opposite. Ivermectin is a good prophylaxis and cure for Covid. The jab is just hurting people and is a way to launder money from Big Pharma to Big Government.
November: University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC) researcher Ralph Baric publishes a “breakthrough work” in gain-of-function research (studies that alter pathogens to make them more transmissible or deadly), describing the creation of a synthetic clone of a natural mouse coronavirus.
November: China’s Guangdong province reports the first case of “atypical pneumonia” (later labeled as SARS).
2003
October 28: A paper by the Baric research group at UNC describes their synthetic recreation of the “previously undescribed” SARS coronavirus. (Writing in 2020, a scientist states, “The speed of the Baric group illustrates how quickly a qualified team of virologists can create a synthetic clone from a natural virus, and therefore make genetic modifications to it. Moreover, that was back in 2003. Today, a qualified laboratory can repeat those steps in a matter of weeks.”)
2011
December 30: Dr. Fauci promotes gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses, arguing that the research is worth the risk. The risks worry other “seasoned researchers.”
It goes on to the article I posted a few down about China and UNC.
December 12: Confidential documents show agreements between U.S. NIAID and Moderna, revealing that they transferred “potential Coronavirus vaccine candidate” (19 days before outbreak in China).
December: Moderna Shareholder letter: Under sub-heading “Partnerships” CEO Bancel mentions having $187 million in funding from grants. Footnote mentions partners being DARPA and Gates Foundation.
2020
January: Covid-19 propaganda videos start to emerge from China.
Yes, the B&M Gates foundation (not related to the blog) has it’s tainted fingers on this one too.
Anyone can see what is going on here. They do take us for idiots I guess to think we would believe what is being sold. Screw the conspiracy theories because that is guessing. When you put some facts on the table like this, it’s kind of hard to ignore what is going on.
Connecting the dots and seeing patterns show a lot of coverup starting to happen. There will be a lot of finger pointing if the MSM can’t cover this up like everything else. What else is undiscovered?
Delusions of Adequacy 