Experts call WHO & Bill Gates Foundation's role in India's polio eradication campaign unethical

Ramesh Shankar, Mumbai, PHARMABIZ.com Thursday, April 05, 2012, 08:00 Hrs  [IST]

Medical experts in paediatrics in the country have lambasted the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Bill Gates Foundation for trumpeting India's polio eradication campaign which they knew 10 years back that it was never going to succeed. 'India was taken off the list of polio-endemic countries by the WHO on January 12, 2012 but the polio eradication campaign will have to be continued in some format for ever. The long promised monetary benefits from ceasing to vaccinate against poliovirus will never be achieved', the well known paediatricians said. “It was unethical for WHO and Bill Gates to flog this programme when they knew 10 years back that it was never to succeed. Getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical,” said Dr Neetu Vashisht and Dr Jacob Puliyel of the Department of Paediatrics at St Stephens Hospital in Delhi in their report in the April issue of 'Indian Journal of Medical Ethics'. January 12, 2012, marked a significant milestone for India as it was the first anniversary of the last reported wild polio case from India. The two doctors noted that it was long known to the scientific community that eradication of polio was impossible because scientists had synthesized poliovirus in a test-tube as early as in 2002. “The sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in the lab,” they said and added, “Man can thus never let down his guard against poliovirus.” Dr Vashisht and Dr Puliyel said that another major ethical issue raised by the campaign is the failure to thoroughly investigate the increase in the incidence of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) in areas where many doses of vaccine were used. NPAFP is clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly. The authors noted that while India was polio-free in 2011, in the same year, there were 47500 cases of NPAFP. While data from India’s National Polio Surveillance Project showed NPAFP rate increased in proportion to the number of polio vaccine doses received, independent studies showed that children identified with NPAFP “were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection.” According to their report, nationally, the NPAFP rate is now twelve times higher than expected. In the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar -- which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month--the NPAFP rate is 25 and 35 fold higher than the international norms. The authors point out that while the anti-polio campaign in India was mostly self-financed it started with a token donation of two million dollars from abroad. “The Indian government finally had to fund this hugely expensive programme, which cost the country 100 times more than the value of the initial grant.” “This is a startling reminder of how initial funding and grants from abroad distort local priorities,” the authors noted. “From India’s perspective the exercise has been an extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio, were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.” In conclusion they say that “the polio eradication programme epitomizes nearly everything that is wrong with donor funded ‘disease specific’ vertical projects at the cost of investments in community-oriented primary health care (horizontal programmes).” The WHO's current policy calls for stopping oral polio vaccine (OPV) vaccination three years after the last case of poliovirus-caused poliomyelitis. Injectable polio vaccine (IPV), which is expensive, will replace OPV in countries which can afford it. “The risks inherent in this strategy are immense,” Dr Puliyel and Dr Vashisht warn. “Herd immunity against poliomyelitis will rapidly decline as new children are born and not vaccinated. Thus, any outbreak of poliomyelitis will be disastrous, whether it is caused by residual samples of virus stored in laboratories, by vaccine-derived polioviruses or by poliovirus that is chemically synthesized with malignant intent.” They argue that the huge costs of repeated rounds of OPV in terms of money and NPAFP shows that monthly administration of OPV must cease. “Our resources are perhaps better spent on controlling poliomyelitis to a locally acceptable level rather than trying to eradicate the disease.”

Why the BBC Reported WTC7 Collapse Before it Actually Happened

by Paul Joseph Watson

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of “clairvoyance” in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC’s response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

“We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.” If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are “part of the conspiracy,” but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do “chaos and confusion” explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened “unexpectedly” according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn’t make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, “she doesn’t remember” just doesn’t cut it as an excuse.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world’s premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn’t want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC’s credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC – what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This “error” translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein – I’m sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your “error.” In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the “error” that led to your correspondent reporting the building’s downfall in advance?

Source

BBC Reports Collapse of WTC-7 Early

whatreallyhappened.com

The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.' Videos

At 21:54 GMT on 9/11/2001 the BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed. There was just one problem with this news: WTC 7 did not collapse until 22:20 GMT.The videos below show the BBC World broadcast. Watch the whole BBC Video here The two screenshots below show WTC 7 behind the reporter.
The following screenshot shows the satellite feed mysteriously breaking up roughly five minutes before the actual collapse. Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7's collapse during a speaking appearance. Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11-- at first-- but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background. "A lot of eyebrows were raised," We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers. Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. "This sounds so significant-- I'm just amazed I didn't know about this... This is completely news to me." "So, is there no official explanation?" Hayton further probed. We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were "lost" in a 'cock-up.' "I sense that you think there's a conspiracy here-- but you might be right," Hayton concluded. [Prison Planet] BBC News 24 also broadcast that WTC 7 had collapsed, and a corroborative time stamp was on their broadcast. [357kB WMV video download] 21:54 GMT is 16:54 (4:54 PM) East Coast time, 26 minutes BEFORE WTC 7 actually collapsed. Fox News also reported the building had collapsed before it came down: "...we are getting word from New York that another building has collapsed and we understand this is a 47 story building ... is that smoke coming from this third collapse?""Take a look at that right hand of the screen." "It's going down right now." 1.1 MB wmv download Richard Porter, the head of news at BBC World issued this explanation of the BBC World video: 1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening. 2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving. 3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services. 4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another. 5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... " Below are some selected comments made in reply to Mr Porter's explanation:
How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?
I'm not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it's collapse is highly suspicious. If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12. You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here. 1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built. 2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected. 3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations? 4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation. 5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.' Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage. Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.
To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so.
Let's say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn't - why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN'T actually go down? You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history... ;) (Good job! That way no one can "prove" anything that day...) Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage - WTC 3,4,5,6 - and assorted others that suffered minor damage (amoung them, WTC 7 - Salomon Brothers Building), BBC - by merely a mistake and in confusion - picked exactly the right one that was going to fall -.... ;) (Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent - they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven't - but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a 'lucky guess', huh?) BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds - you'd be rich. BBC is not part of the conspiracy - but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes. You capture the biggest smoking gun in history ... and your response is ..... to call yourselves incompetent and go play 'blind/deaf/dumb monkey' on your public. Good job, Guys!!
"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that." Uh, it WASN'T an error... That's the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn't the anchor say something like, "We're getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing... We'll have to check up on this... etc." No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was "...trying to make sense of what they were seeing... and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services." And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross... So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We'll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air). Do I think the BBC is "...part of a conspiracy"? No... but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.
With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved. In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words "apparently", "it's reported" or "we're hearing" ARE NOT USED in context of building 7. The words used are those have definite and past tense. "Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,...the Solomon Brothers Building collapse... and indeed it has" "What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it's collapse?" "When it collapsed" Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.” Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter? Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker? Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information? What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day? The words in your statement #4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a separate site as a master. As follows. Ref No. Policy Area / Policy Statement 01 Components to be Retained 01-01 The following components to be retained:- Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy _overview.htm#top
If the footage had continued, we'd all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program. Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers. What in the world would you have said if that had happened? What is going on here? I'd like a little truth please.
I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on...but, the virtual reality that the "media" create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of.
Contrary to the dismissive tone of the "explanation", whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge. Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It's gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood. In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren't talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it. Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost thus far, and there are doubtless more to come.

Whooping Cough Outbreaks HIGHER Among Vaccinated Children

Reuters reports that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

The article titled "Whooping cough vaccine fades inpre-teens: study" starts out by stating that "During a whooping cough outbreak in California in 2010, immunized children between 8 and 12 years old were more likely to catch the bacterial disease than kids of other ages, suggesting that the childhood vaccine wears off as kids get older, according to new research."

It goes on to say:

"In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough -- the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. "We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention."

The same article also admits that these vaccines have never been tested for long-term effectiveness:
"GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine's protection after the shot given to four-to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said. Dr. Joel Ward at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute said it's still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn't provide lasting protection from whooping cough."

Despite admitting the fact that majority of the children were fully vaccinated against this disease, the article conveniently shifts the emphasis to state that childhood vaccines wears off as children gets older. This questions the very bedrock of Vaccine Theory because if vaccines "fade out" over time then they don't work. Rather than critically analyze the reason why so many of the fully vaccinated children gets this disease, now children are at a higher risk of getting more doses of these useless vaccines. See how twisted their thinking is?

How the mainstream media spin this news:
 

See this mindless article in The Seattle Times that typifies the kind of brain-dead journalism observed across the mainstream media: "Whooping cough spreading fast in state; vaccinations urged."

No mention of the finding that these cases of whooping cough outbreaks were higher among vaccinated kids. Instead, it urges more people to get vaccinated.

Does whooping cough vaccine prevents the disease or keep whooping cough in circulation?

A detailed critique on this issue can be found in the following article from natural news: 

"Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated"

Will There Be A Terrorist Attack at the 2012 London Olympics?

by Christopher Woodward, suite101.com, International Affairs

Movies, TV programmes, the print media and card games all present evidence of a looming terror threat planned for the 2012 London Olympics.

In 1995 Steve Jackson’s Illuminati: New World Order game was released. The playing cards depict numerous events and initiatives which can be used or implemented as a means towards achieving the ultimate aim of world domination. Included among them are an Internet Worm, an Epidemic, Gun Control, introducing State Lotteries, use of Subliminals and just about every natural disaster thinkable.

Two of the most interesting cards are the Terrorist Nuke and Pentagon cards. Both have pictures that, incredibly, almost perfectly depict the attack of 9/11, over six years before the event took place.

The first episode of the TV drama series, The Lone Gunman, aired in March 2001, involved a US government conspiracy to hijack a commercial airliner and fly it into the World Trade Centre, then blame it on terrorists to gain support for a profit-making war.

In May 2004, a BBC Panorama programme was broadcast featuring a mock exercise of a terrorist attack in London, with a bombing of three underground trains and a road vehicle. This was the very same scenario that was to take place during the 7/7 2005 London Bombings.

The fact that the real life 9/11 and 7/7 bombings both have an uncanny resemblance to previous fictional terrorist attacks is evidence that these were not entirely random events, and the so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ that claim these were inside jobs may have a point.

There are many cirlces that believe the world, including most of the mass media, is controlled by a shadowy group known as the illuminati, who employ various symbols and a numerology as code language to demonstrate their existence and unveil their future plans.

In recent years there have been many signs within the media signalling a planned terrorist attack at the 2012 London Olympics. Former oilfield executive and geo-political researcher Ian Crane, goes so far as to predict that a fake alien invasion will take place, planned by the global elite to usher in the new world order. It must be stated that all the signs fall well short of being proof that a terrorist attack will take place, and are based upon questionable theories. However they do present a sufficient body of evidence to signal a timely warning.

Spooks: Code 9. A Warning from the BBC? 

Spooks: Code 9 was a spy drama series broadcast by the BBC in August 2008 and set in 2012, in the aftermath of a nuclear attack at the London Olympics that had taken place during the opening ceremony.

There are a number of scenes in the drama in which the background contains the all-seeing eye symbol, as displayed on dollar notes, and commonly placed in the background on the logos of many corporations. It is thought to signal a coded message from the illuminati.

The all-seeing eye is similarly displayed on the homepage of Kudos, the production company behind Spooks: Code 9, and also depicted on Wenlock and Mandeville, the London 2012 official mascots.

In the first episode, a character asks to have exactly 330 minutes to find a killer. What may appear to be an unusual and illogical amount of time to request, may actually be a deliberately coded message. The number 330 may be a reference to 33, which points to the 33 degrees of Freemasonry. This could be a sign that the Freemasons are behind the programme and are conveying a secret coded message. The decision to include the phrase Code 9 in the title could be a signal towards a coded message in the programme, conveying that the events that take place in the series are planned to happen in the real world.

Other Evidences That Point Towards a Planned Terror Attack

The movie 2012 contains a scene in which a character is looking for a map inside a plane when trying to escape an exploding volcano. The first map he picks up and then fully opens is a map of the London underground, which can be clearly seen to viewers. Is this a sign of a future threat in London in 2012?

The late August 2011 edition of the British political satire magazine Private Eye had a cover title with the words ‘Olympic Rehearsal’, accompanied by an image of the recent London riots containing a speech balloon with the words ‘This is the worst opening ceremony ever.’

Another card used in the Illuminati game has a picture of Big Ben being blown up and five men, each of them wearing different colours, red, blue, yellow, green and black - the same colours of the five Olympic rings. In the same way as the cards depicting the 9/11 attacks, could this card be a sign of a planned terrorist attack at the London Olympics?

In July 2005, soon after London had won the bid to host the Olympics, it was reported that the Olympic Park site where the Games were planned to take place is the site of a former nuclear reactor.

In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation released a report entitled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. In one of the potential future scenarios considered, the report stated that, “the years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason; the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000….”

Given that the number 13 is considered to be a key number used by the illuminati to reveal a secret coded message, and the significance of the Rockefeller Foundation in working to bring about a new world order behind the scenes, alongside other tax-exempt foundations, is this report yet another sign of a planned terrorist attack at the London Olympics?

Conspiracy Theory or Genuine Threat?

Undoubtedly, when presented with the evidence, many readers will ask, "Why would they want to do that?" The purpose of a planned terrorist attack, if it were to happen, would be as a means to move rapidly towards the goal of totalitarian world government. As David Rockfeller said at a 1994 United Nations dinner "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

It is entirely possible the Olympics will take place without any threats or disturbances, and if it does, it cannot be legitimately argued that this was the result of the threat being made known to enough people, as some conspiracy theorists may wish to suggest. Nor can it be said that, if a terrorist attack does take place, that it is definitely the result of the Illuminati.

Nevertheless, the evidence available is sufficient to warrant the need for a warning to be issued and for the evidence to be laid out to the public. This is especially true considering the signs preceding 9/11 and other atrocities.

Ultimately, whether a terror attack will happen or not, only time will tell.