Fifth Gen Warfare, Part 3

Written by Robert W Malone MD, MS on April 26, 2023. Posted in Current News

PsyWar tactics; Cyberstalking and Gang Stalking are against the law, and the CDC funds groups that are doing this to US licensed physicians

What a bizarre world we are living in.

The Epoch Times has recently published an article based on whistleblower evidence that the United States Government, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has used it’s congressionally-approved non-profit (called the CDC Foundation) to contract with at least one company to perform cyberstalking and gang stalking attacks on licensed physicians accused of spreading misinformation about COVID public health policies including genetic vaccines.

Frankly, I think that the editors of the Epoch Times buried the lede on this one. This is a far larger story of government malfeasance than the relatively benign headline seems to indicate.

Of course corporate media has completely overlooked <eg. buried> the story.

This is yet more evidence of the US Government deploying Fifth Generation (cyber)Warfare/PsyOps/Propaganda technologies on its citizens, in this specific case against US Licensed physicians that contradicted officially promoted false narratives concerning the COVIDcrisis and the abysmal public health policies which were promoted by the WHO, US HHS, and specifically the CDC.

As I have said many times before, how can a democratic society exist when the government is willing and able to deploy fifth generation PsyOps/PsyWar technologies against its own citizens? The concept of personal sovereignty and autonomy becomes obsolete, an anachronism, when this becomes accepted practice.

According to its website, the CDC Foundation is “the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work.”

So now, according to the Epoch Times, we have the CDC Foundation, which receives funding from a wide range of donors (here is a link to the 2022 donor report from the foundation) including the likes of Merck, Pfizer, PayPal, Fidelity, Blackrock, the Imperial College of London, Emergent Biosolutions, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (as in J&J) and so many other major corporate and state donors, has been funding Cyberstalking and “Gang Stalking” of licensed physicians.

Cyberstalking is both a federal crime and a crime in many states.

18 U.S. Code § 2261A – Stalking

(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person;

(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(iv) the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be.

Some background, which is important to understand the corruption that is occurring in the present day:

I am very familiar with the CDC Foundation, having first encountered it decades ago when I was working as Director for Business Development and Project Management for the AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation.

AERAS was one of the first wave of “Gatelets”; the non-profit companies set up to receive “donations” from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), so that the BMGF foundation could get the tax benefits of donating to non-profit organizations.

AERAS happened to be the one that taught the BMGF how Merck Vaccines does business, as the CEO (Jerry Sadoff) had once been a Director at Merck Vaccines, and had kept the various business and training manuals from that firm which he then brought into AERAS, and then used these corporate manuals to instruct the BMGF in “industry best practices” for vaccine companies.

At a time when I was looking hard for new clients, and I was brought in to this situation as a consultant proposal manager/author/subject matter expert by a Vice President of AERAS to salvage a poorly written grant/contract proposal prepared by an AERAS employee, lets call him “Larry”.

Larry used to work for the CDC in the tuberculosis group, and still had good contacts there. The tuberculosis research group at CDC had a problem- they could not get authorization for additional staff (full time employees or FTE).

They could get money to develop offshore clinical research sites, just not money for additional employees. In DoD federal contracting and Washington DC slang, this is called having an issue of “the color of money”.

AERAS had a problem- they needed more money (and legitimization via CDC) to develop clinical research sites in India and South Africa at which the new TB vaccines they were developing (with BMGF funds) could be tested in places where there is a lot of tuberculosis.

A deal had been cooked with the CDC so that AERAS would “donate” money through the CDC Foundation to fund the desired additional tuberculosis researchers (FTE) at the CDC. And the quid pro quo was to be that the CDC would “solicit” a proposal from a qualified TB vaccine innovator (written so that only AERAS would qualify) for clinical research site development.

The problem was that “Larry” was not able to write a decent federal proposal, his submission had already been judged inadequate once by CDC reviewers, and AERAS was only going to be allowed two shots on goal.

So I became the hired gun brought in to write a second version of the proposal. The mission was accomplished, the award was made by the CDC, and the donation was made by AERAS.

And from this, I learned yet another lesson in how DC really works- how this congressionally approved “CDC Foundation” back door actually worked to allow private entities to influence federal public health policy. In the precise way that it was not supposed to work. Just like the Foundation for NIH, which funneled Pharma money into the COVID “ACTIV” clinical trials.

Rules on Gifts in the Federal Government

Government ethical rules restrict giving and accepting gifts among employees and from outside interests.

Policies on exchanges of gifts among employees—as well as on acceptance of gifts or hospitality from other sources—are set by government-wide rules found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 5 CFR 2635 201–205 and 301–304.

Basically, no-one and no company is allowed to give “gifts” to the federal government because of the risk of resulting conflict of interest (otherwise known as corruption).

In the case of the CDC foundation and the Foundation for the NIH, these rules have been specifically waived by congress. This allows Pharma and a variety of other interests to do exactly what the law was intended to prevent- to influence federal agency policies and actions by making financial donations.

Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying

Here is some relevant background and definitions from the Cyberbullying Research Center:

Definition of Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking involves the use of technology (most often, the Internet!) to make someone else afraid or concerned about their safety. Generally speaking, this conduct is threatening or otherwise fear-inducing, involves an invasion of a person’s relative right to privacy, and manifests in repeated actions over time.

Most of the time, those who cyberstalk use social media, Internet databases, search engines, and other online resources to intimidate, follow, and cause anxiety or terror to others.

Surprisingly, cyberstalking rarely occurs by a stranger (although we do hear about those cases when they involve celebrities and rabid fans), and most often is carried out by a person the target knows intimately or professionally.

For example, the aggressor may be an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend, former friend, past employee, or an acquaintance who wants to control, possess, scare, threaten, or actually harm the other person.

In many cases, they have had access to certain personal information, accounts, inboxes, or other private knowledge regarding their target’s daily routine, lifestyle, or life choices.

Difference between Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying

We argue that cyberstalking is one form of cyberbullying, especially when considering our definition of the latter (“willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices”).

Cyberstalking behaviors may include tracking down someone’s personal and private information and using it to make them afraid, texting them hundreds of times a day to let them know you are watching them, “creeping” on their social media accounts to learn where they are so you can show up there uninvited, or posting about them incessantly and without their permission.

The common denominator is that the behavior makes the target extremely concerned for their personal safety and causes some form of distress, fear, or annoyance.

Stories of cyberstalking are frequently covered by the mainstream media when famous people are involved (you can find incidents related to Selena Gomez, Madonna, Justin Bieber, Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, and others with a simple Google search) but media headlines often do not accurately convey the true nature and extent of the phenomenon.

Unfortunately, academic researchers have largely neglected studying cyberstalking on a broad scale, and we only have a couple recent national studies from which to draw upon. The cool thing is that their prevalence rates are pretty darn close to another, and I believe paint an accurate picture of how often this is occurring across America.

Gang Stalking is a form of Cyberstalking or Cyberbullying. Apparently, unproven accusations of physicians spreading “misinformation” were considered by the CDC Foundation sufficient for engaging in state-sponsored Cyberstalking.

What does this weaponized term “misinformation” actually refer to?

Misinformation in the context of current public health is defined as any speech which differs from the official statements of the World Health Organization or local health authorities (ergo CDC, FDA, NIH).

So, any physician who says, writes or highlights opinions or information which differs from the (current) CDC position is defined as spreading misinformation. Disinformation is such speech which is provided for political purposes.

Malinformation is any such speech which can cause mistrust of the government, even if the information is true. The US Department of Homeland Security has defined mis- dis- and malinformation as a form of domestic terrorism.

So apparently federally funded cyberstalking is acceptable when the CDC accuses a licensed US physician of domestic terrorism for the crime of spreading mis- dis- or malinformation concerning COVID public health policies?

This is taken from a long document. Read the rest here substack.com

Some bold emphasis added

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.