WHO’s new global pandemic prevention plan will initially focus on respiratory pathogens and will move on to vector and foodborne pandemics.
WHO’s New Pandemic Prevention Plan: First Focus – Respiratory Pathogens
In a measure that is no doubt devised as a desperate attempt to hold tight to its grasp as the self-proclaimed arbiter of global pandemics, the World Health Organization just launched a newpandemicprevention plan. Released on April 27, 2023, the WHO’s Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats (PRET) Initiative’s first module focuses onrespiratory pathogens, including influenza, coronaviruses, and respiratory syncytial virus. According to WHO, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic “and the possible threat of avian influenza,” this module will enable countries to “critically review, test, and update their respiratory pandemic planning efforts to ensure they have the functional capacities and capabilities in place.”
While the first module focuses on respiratory pathogens as a potential future “COVID-19 scale” pandemic,the WHOboasts that PRET’s “systems, capacities, knowledge, and tools can be leveraged and applied for groups of pathogens based on their mode of transmission.” So never fear; besides a global respiratory catastrophe, the WHO is expecting global pandemics that are both vector-borne and foodborne, to name a few. The WHOreports, “A process is underway to identify the next group of pathogens, such as arboviruses, to be addressed under this initiative.” Ultimately, the PRET initiative will be poised to operationalize the objectives and provisions of the controversial Pandemic Accord, currently being negotiated by WHO Member States.
Yet, it can’t be understated that, despite all the conferences, initiatives, pandemic planning exercises, and so on, the WHO and other global elites funding drills, holding meetings, and scheming around disastrous health emergencies failed miserably to protect the public duringCOVID-19. Indeed, with the obvious objective driving the COVID-19 pandemic being the introduction ofmRNA technologyto the world’s population, absolutely missing from any planning before or during the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 was the use of repurposed drugs, an emphasis on proper health or a lifestyle centered aroundstrengthening the immune system. And when untested COVID processes and procedures were obviously failing, like howremdesivirand ventilators flat outkilled people, instead of taking the lead and suggesting course change, the reputable experts questioning the methods and sounding the alarms were aggressively silenced by the WHO and others. Yet, these are the very people hoping to guide us through future pandemics.
With that in mind, the motive behind the WHO’s new PRET initiative, which, as previously mentioned, gets underway with its first module concentrated on respiratory viruses of epidemic and pandemic potential, is actually about tracking and compliance. In other words, essentially, it is about the now spoken-out-loud Great Reset. The framework for “resilient surveillance” of these pesky respiratory pathogens, laid out in the WHO’s 96-page “Crafting the Mosaic,” no doubt is tied to the WHO’shealth-relatedSustainable Development Goals (SDGs), one of which is globalUniversal Health Coverage. And while it is still unclear the extent to which the WHO’s Pandemic Accord will control nations that sign up for its propaganda, it seems inevitable the group intends for its regulations to play a part in the future pandemics it warns of. The Mosaic describes the audience behind its framework as follows:
“Th[is] document isintended to be usedat national, regional, and global levels to support national respiratory virus surveillance strengthening through the creation of implementation plans. National governments (often including ministries of health and/or national institutes of public health in close collaboration with ministries of agriculture and the environment for zoonotic diseases) are accountable for implementation of this framework within their own territory and WHO across territories as an organization of Member States who are under IHR obligations, including its associatedJoint External Evaluation framework.”
The PRET initiative will serve the alliance established with the WHO’s partnership with the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI), which it revealed in October 2022. While at the World Health Summit in Berlin, WHO and IANPHI signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) outlining theirjoint efforts to “achieve their common objectives to strengthen public health functions and emergency preparedness.” With the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the group’s 115 members, the partnership is yet another scheme by the WHO to establish a more powerful global presence. Speaking of schemes, as the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the immense corruption between Big Pharma and federal agencies within the United States, the WHO’s oftensketchy fundingtied to drug makers is reason to halt its power grab immediately.
It seems fitting that as deaths from COVID-19 fall as much as 95 percent, the WHO, which, remember, is an arm of theUnited Nations, has launched a new initiative to prepare for “another deadly pandemic like COVID-19.” At this point, the story is all too predictable. And, without question, at least one element of the WHO’s latest global initiative should shock no one—the steps to control the cataclysm once again revolve around vaccines. The word “vaccine” is mentioned at least 116 times in the WHO’s 96-page Mosaic for managing a respiratory virus pandemic. That fact brings to mindBill Gates, a tremendousWHOsupporter who has been planning for pandemics for years and is a vaccine fanatic. Ultimately, it is safe to say that—despite their incessant plotting and planning—neitherBill Gatesnor the WHO should have any say in managing future pandemics.
— Read on thehighwire.com/editorial/whos-new-pandemic-prevention-plan-first-focus-respiratory-pathogens/
The China social credit system is a broad regulatory framework intended to report on the ‘trustworthiness’ of individuals, corporations, and governmental entities across China. In this introduction, we explain what the China social credit system is, how it differs from financial credit ratings elsewhere, and how it impacts on individuals and companies operating within China.
Key Takeaways
1. The goal of the China social credit system is to provide a holistic assessment of an individual’s, or a company’s, trustworthiness.
2. The China social credit system, while still in development, is arguably an extension of existing social rankings and ratings in China which have existed for millennia.
3. The consequences of a poor social credit score could be serious. It may affect travel prospects, employment, access to finance, and the ability to enter into contracts. On the other hand, a positive credit score could make a range of business transactions much easier.
4. It is essential that any foreign business consolidating or establishing their presence in China seek professional advice for managing a social credit score. This applies both to individual scores, and the corporate social credit score.
2022 marks a new phase in the development and implementation of China’s social credit system (sometimes known as ‘SoCS’, or the ‘SCS’). Up until now, development has been guided by a national policy document known as the ‘Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020)’.
This has seen the deployment of the social credit system widely throughout China, with an estimated 80 percent of provinces, regions and cities having introduced some version of the system, or being about to do so.
The implementation of the system for corporations, known as the ‘corporate social credit rating’ is especially advanced: More than 33 million businesses in China have already been given a score under some version of the corporate social credit system.
As of August 2021, it is China’s latest five-year plan for the ‘rule of law’ within China, recent guidance from the State Council, and a draft Social Credit Law, which demonstrate the direction of the social credit system.
So, what is the China social credit system? If commentary in the western media is anything to go by, it is a somewhat mysterious and scary rating system.
In 2018, former US Vice-President, Mike Pence, sounded the alarm bells about China’s social credit system, stating “China’s rulers aim to implement an Orwellian system premised on controlling virtually every facet of human life – the so-called “social credit score.”
Is there any truth to such rhetoric, and what does all this mean for businesses expanding into China?
In this article, we break down the China social credit system, as it has been developed to date, and aim to separate the myth from reality.
What is the China Social Credit System?
The term ‘social credit’ (社会信用体 in Chinese and shèhuì xìnyòng tǐxì in pinyin) doesn’t have a precise meaning — rather, it is an intentionally broad and vague term allowing for maximal policy flexibility.
Plugged into a regulatory framework, the ‘China social credit system’ (also knows as ‘China’s Ranking System’) refers to a diverse network of initiatives aimed at enhancing the amount of ‘trust’ within Chinese society.
The goal of the social credit system is to make it easier for people and businesses to make fully-informed business decisions. A high social credit score will be an indicator that a party can be trusted in a business context.
The system began with a focus on financial creditworthiness, similar to credit scores used in western countries, and moved on to include compliance and legal violations.
The eventual ‘end-state’ of the system is a unified record for people, businesses, and the government, which can bemonitored in real-time.
In more recent years, policy development for the social credit system has moved beyond considerations of financial creditworthiness and compliance to encompass a broader notion of ‘trust’.
A common theme in the policy documents establishing the social credit system is the term ‘Chengxin‘, variously translated as ‘trustworthiness’, ‘honesty’, ‘integrity’, ‘sincerity’ or ‘morality’, depending on the context.
More specifically, through facilitating trust, the China social credit system supports the following goals¹:
Financial creditworthiness (zhengxin 徵信)
As in most countries, firms and individuals need a way of assessing whether others are a safe bet for lending/extending goods on credit. The social credit system aims to rectify this gap in China’s financial and business ecosystem.
Judicial enforcement (gongsi gongxin 司法公信)
Enforcement of judicial decisions (such as judgement debts) has proven particularly difficult in China. Part of the purpose of the social credit system is to find new enforcement mechanisms for existing laws and court decisions.
This means improving compliance and anti-fraud mechanisms for commercial enterprises, and those who participate in them.
Societal trustworthiness (shehui chengxin 社会诚信)
This covers the broader goal in the social credit system of supporting a more ‘moral’ society. We see this goal at work in social credit initiatives which value honesty, hard work and devotion to family.
Government integrity (zhengwu chengxin 政务诚信)
The social credit system is ‘self-reflective’: bureaucrats and politicians themselves will be subject to the regime, with the goal of reducing corruption.
The high-level goals are to be achieved via three key practical mechanisms:
Data gathering and sharing
The fundamental building block of the social credit system is data. Through the system, data is gathered by central, regional and municipal government bodies, as well as private actors, and shared. ‘Big data’ algorithms are then used to process that data in a meaningful manner.
Curation of blacklists and redlists
The data acquired is used to add individuals and corporations to lists (some public, some not).
Punishments, sanctions and rewards
Based partially (but not entirely) on presence in the lists identified above, individuals are punished and rewarded.
The elements of the social credit system outlined above are put into place by a variety of actors:
Policy direction
The social credit system is, at the highest level, driven by the State Council, currently chaired by Premier Li Keqiang. This is the most powerful administrative body within the Chinese government. It is assisted in this task by the National Development and Reform Commission(NDRC). This is a macroeconomic policy body, immediately subordinate to the State Council, and has a mixture of what would in other countries be called Treasury and Reserve/Central Bank Powers. The People’s Bank of China (PBoC) also plays a prominent role at the highest policy level.
Central government and court implementation
Dozens of central government departments and agencies have implemented elements of the social credit system, especially the blacklists and redlists. Prominent examples include the Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the PBoC.
The Supreme People’s Court has also introduced an expansive blacklist of debtors under the scheme.
Regional and municipal government implementation
It is through regional pilots that the social credit system has largely been implemented, including the ‘model cities’ initiative introduced in 2017 (see timeline below).
Private company credit ratings and contracting
Several private companies have developed their own credit systems (such as Alibaba’s affiliated ‘Sesame Credit’), with participation being voluntary. Some of these have been developed independently, while others have been developed as part of government trials.
In other cases, private companies have been contracted to provide the infrastructure supporting the credit system such as Baidu’s refresh of the ‘Credit China’ webportal, and Tencent’s development support for the app.
Historical Background to the China Social Credit System
While the introduction of a unified China social credit system was formally announced in 2014, precursors to the proposed social credit system have operated within China for centuries — arguably millennia. The idea, or philosophy, behind social credit, might be traced back to the ‘warring states’ period of Chinese history. At that time, various schools of thought competed for dominance:
Confucianism
Confucius (551–479 BCE) advocated a ‘holistic’ conception of human nature where individual well-being was connected to good character, and the proper functioning of society as a whole.
Mohism
Mozi (470 BC–391 BCE) suggested that all humans should care for each other equally, and advocated a society where all were treated impartially.
Legalism
This school, (approximately 400-300 BC), emphasized the importance of laws, strictly enforced from above, in order to preserve social order.
Though arguably ‘legalism’ won out, all three of these schools influenced the first imperial ‘Qin’ dynasty (221-206 BC). It is within this dynasty that a meritocratic assessment and promotion system was applied across the imperial bureaucracy in order to achieve a well-functioning Chinese state. Arguably, this was a rudimentary ‘social credit system’, albeit one applied only to civil servants, and without a precise ‘score’.
In the 20th century, public record systems have been developed to record the behavior and actions of ordinary individuals. For example, the hukou system, in place in its modern incarnation since 1958, registers households, controls internal movement within China, and assigns benefits to households depending on their rural or urban location.
The dàng’àn is a set of records related to an individual within China, recording that individual’s “performance and attitudes”. This file contains a range of information such as physical characteristics, photographs, employment records, academic records, workplace appraisals, convictions and administrative penalties. This file follows an individual for life, and two copies are held: One is kept by the Public Security Bureau and the other by the individual’s work unit.
This file has been used (and still is) for a range of decisions affecting an individual, such as promotions and access to passports.
A key proposed benefit of the new unified social credit system is that, instead of relying on a paper record to manage society, the electronically-integrated system would expedite the analysis process and make oversight easier.
Timeline of the Development of the China Social Credit System
In 1978-1979, the reforms of Deng Xiaoping opened up the Chinese economy in various key ways, including the “Open Door” policy that permitted foreign investment in Chinaonce more. From that point on the lack of traditional credit rating systems, as well as significant corruption scandals, have been seen as a limitation on economic prosperity.
By contrast, developed western economies like the United States already had computerized credit analysis by the 1960s (though scoring systems, such as the FICO, did not rise to prominence until the late 1980s).
We set out the development timeline for the social credit system below:
Mid-1990s — First credit databases constructed
The PBoC developed an early database providing financial credit information to commercial banks.
This was formalized in the ‘Banking Credit Registration and Reference System’ (sometimes translated as ‘Bank Credit Registry and Consulting System’), established in 1997.
1999 — The idea surfaces
Then Premier Zhu Rongji assigned a research team at the Institute of World Economics and Politics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to investigate solutions to corrupt market behaviour. In response, The National Credit ManagementSystem² is released, advocating a centralized system, bringing together data from across China.
The focus of the system at this stage was economic: Debt default, contractual breach, and regulatory non-compliance were to be the key data for the system.
From this point on, embryonic pilot testing of the system began. For example, in 2000, Shanghai introduced a credit system which assessed eligibility for loans by individuals based on payment of utility bills.³
2004 — Official endorsement from the leadership
Then President Jiang Zemin endorsed the social credit system at the 16th CPC party congress in his report ‘Build a Well-off Society in an All-Round Way and Create a New Situation in Building Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’.
The stated goal was to establish a social credit system compatible with a modern market system.
In addition, trials on a consumer credit reporting database began with 23 state-owned and commercial banks across seven municipalities.
2006 — Credit Reference Centre established
The Credit Reference Centre is created to be a nation-wide, independent, credit reporting agency.
Banks were required to start reporting on customer creditworthiness. Through collaboration with government departments and the Supreme People’s Court, additional information relevant for creditworthiness began to be reported.
2007 — Co-ordinated national policy development
The Joint Inter-ministerial Conference on Social Credit System Construction (the ‘joint conference’) was set up to co-ordinate the development of the system.
Participants include key government departments and agencies such as the Ministry of Finance, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and the Ministry of Public Security.
But members were also included from the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (the chief anti-corruption body in China), the Central Guidance Commission on Building Spiritual Civilization (the chief ideological body in China, aimed at a “socialist harmonious society”), and the Supreme People’s Court.
This wide membership beyond traditional government departments is perhaps indicative of the all-encompassing nature of the planned social credit system (and the move from a focus on financial creditworthiness, to broader conceptions of ‘trust’).
2009 — Regional pilots of the social credit system commence
One of the most well-cited cases was the system introduced in Suining county, Jiangsu province. Individuals were given 1000 points, with the ability to gain or lose points based on their behaviour. Convictions or debt non-repayment, for example, meant point deductions.
These points were then used to create a letter grade from A to D. And the result of those letter grades affected employment opportunities, access to business licenses, and eligibility for government support.⁴
A more recent example is the the ‘Social Credit Card’, introduced in Nanjing in 2016. This offers select benefits to individuals with a high social credit score, including discounts and preferential treatment by financial institutions. Assessment criteria include such considerations as the individual’s willingness to donate blood, and whether the individual is recognized as a hard worker.
2013 — Supreme People’s Court debtor blacklist established
This list publishes the names and ID numbers of defaulters.
As well as the ‘shame’ associated with being on the list, defaulters were prevented from a range of ‘high-end’ expenditure, including travelling and staying in certain hotels.
Notably, it applies to both individuals and the legal representatives and officers of companies in default.
In 2017, it was estimated that 8.8 million debtors had been added to this list.
2014 — Release of key planning and co-ordination document
The State Council released ‘Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020)’ in 2014.
This document is a culmination of the work of the joint conference, and has guided the social credit system in its development over the past six years.
Five objectives for the system listed in that document included establishing necessary laws and regulations for social credit, the completion of a credit investigation and sharing system for all of China, developing credit supervision systems, a market for credit services, and establishing mechanisms for keeping trust and punishing those who fail to do so.
A significant emphasis with this last objective was the development of blacklists and redlists (these are discussed in detail below).
2015 — National Credit Information Sharing Platform (NCISP) and private provider trial
The NCISP is overseen by the NDRC in conjunction with dozens of other government departments. It integrates all the regulatory data used to construct blacklists and redlists.
It is this database that the Unified Social Credit Code uses to pick out a particular corporate actor.
Also in 2015, the PBoC authorized a trial for 8 companies to test numerical credit score systems, based on repayment, purchase history and personal characteristics. The most well known was Alibaba-affiliated ‘Sesame Credit’. These licences were not renewed and instead the 8 companies received a stake in a unified credit platform named Baihang, with a significant stake controlled by the PBoC.⁵
2016 — Progression on blacklists and redlists
2016 saw the the State Council emphasize the standardization of blacklists and redlists (see ‘Guiding Opinions on Establishing and Improving the Joint Incentive System for Trustworthiness and Joint Disciplinary System for Untrustworthiness’);
From this point, blacklists and redlists became ubiquitous across government departments, with more than 50 in operation.
2017-2018 — Model city trials
Widespread adoption of regional trials of the social credit system, with 12 such cities in 2017 being classified as ‘model cities’. Perhaps the most prominent example city is Rongchen. The city introduced a comprehensive grading and reward and punishment system. The platform involves collaboration between 142 government departments. Hundreds of positive and negative factors go into the final score, with positive scoring individuals having priority access for finance and licences.
In Suzhuo, a collaboration between the city government and Ant Financial with the ‘Osmanthus‘ score was applied 13 million residents. High scores meant (among other things), public transport and library benefits.⁶
2019 — Towards AI
The State Council released ‘Guiding Opinions on Accelerating the Construction of a Social Credit System and Building a New Credit-based Supervisory Mechanism’. This emphasized the need for big data and artificial intelligence to provide early warning of risky actors in need of extra regulatory attention. It also recognized the need to focus on market regulation.
At the same time, the document called for improved credit repair mechanisms, enhanced data collection and privacy protections.
2020 — Covid-19 implications and further standardization
In December 2020, a draft of the Social Credit Law was released for internal consultation. There is speculation that the eventual law may look like existing provincial social credit regulations that have been implemented, such as Shanghai’s.
Covid-19 also saw the China social credit system altered in various ways to recognize the impact of the pandemic. This is discussed in detail below.
How Does the China Social Credit Work?
The China social credit system rates individuals based on the aggregation and analysis of data. In some trials, this has involved a single numerical score (usually between 1 and 1000, like a FICO score), or a letter grade (usually from A-D).
This information is acquired from a range of sources including individual businesses (including ‘big tech’) and government entities. Some of the information is ‘siloed’, and accessible only by the individual regional or central government authority. But in many cases the information is shared with other regulators through a centralized database, such as NCISP.
For example, some of the factors that can be considered in giving a corporate social credit rating include:
Whether the business has paid taxes on time
Whether the business maintains necessary licenses
Whether the business fulfills environmental-protection requirements
Whether the business meets product quality standards
Whether the business meets requirements specific to their industry.
It is important to note is that businesses’ scores may decrease based on the behavior of their partners. This means enterprises need to think very carefully about who they do business with in China.
As the China social credit system is still in a state of evolution, it is impossible to say with certainty what exactly the negative consequences are. That said, based on those elements that are currently in place, as well as existing regional pilots, potential negative effects of a bad score once fully implemented include:
Travel bans
Reports in 2019 indicated that 23 million people have been blacklisted from travelling by plane or train due to low social credit ratings maintained through China’s National Public Credit Information Center. It is reasonable to assume that this will continue as part of China’s social credit system.
School bans
The social credit score may prevent students from attending certain universities or schools if their parents have a poor social credit rating. For example, in 2018 a student was denied entry to University due to their father’s presence on a debtor blacklist.
Reduced employment prospects
Employers will be able to consult blacklists when making their employment decisions. In addition, it is possible that some positions, such as government jobs, will be restricted to individuals who meet a certain social credit rating.
Increased scrutiny
Businesses with poor scores may be subject to more audits or government inspections.
Public shaming
In many cases, regulators have encouraged the ‘naming and shaming’ of individuals presented on blacklists. In addition, flow-on effects may make it difficult for businesses with low scores to build relationships with local partners who can be negatively impacted by their partnership.
In addition, businesses of individuals need to consider the negative effects that the actions of a person or business can create for others due to a poor social credit score.
For example, engaging with companies that have a low social credit score (such as those that are ‘blacklisted’) can reduce one’s own social credit score. In addition, if an individual with a poor social credit rating opens a business, the business mayautomatically begin with a low social credit score.
The majority of megacities and mid-sized cities in China have already implemented a trial-period of the social credit system. There are many ways to lose points and lower one’s social credit score, depending on the city where the offense takes place. Some of the more trivial score-lowering actions include:
Some have questioned whether some of these activities and behaviors are bad enough to merit the penalties that result from a low social credit score.
It should be noted that the court system is available for individual’s or corporations to appeal their score.
The China Social Credit System and the Blacklist
So far we have made several references to the ‘blacklists’ and ‘redlists’ associated with the China social credit system. So what exactly is a blacklist?
China currently has a number of national and regional blacklists based on various types of violations. It is expected that over time, the system of blacklists will be fully integrated with the social credit score.
Businesses can be placed on a blacklist due to a particular violation or because of a poor social credit score. A government notice released in 2016 encourages businesses to consult the blacklist before they hire someone or assign them a contract. A blacklist of people restricted from taking air and rail transport.
Please note that companies will not be blacklisted automatically for compliance failures. The corporate social credit system also maintains an irregularity list. This list deals with significant (but not yet ‘blacklist’ level), non-compliance.
Presence on this list means the business is in danger of being blacklisted and should quickly take steps to improve its reputation.
The Chinese government utilizes the blacklist in multiple ways. The list itself is frequently being analyzed, with the available information on both its citizens and companies listed in their Master Database working as a template for assigning each person a score.
While the China Blacklisting system is still in its early stages, it is already the most prominent system of its kind worldwide. China has already put this system into action, and has barred thousands of Chinese residents’ rights to buy plane tickets and travel either domestically or abroad. However, most of the blacklisting that has occurred to date has been as a result of violations or misbehaviour of companies and the individuals working for them.
In its current iteration, the blacklisting system is highly complex. Instead of having a single blacklist used by the federal government, there are currently hundreds of blacklists being controlled by various state agencies around China. Every agency has their own jurisdiction in which they operate, giving these localized organizations the ability to blacklist individual citizens and companies that operate within their area of authority.
It’s important to note that being blacklisted under one agency’s jurisdiction may leave the affected party subject to blacklisting from the remaining agencies across the country (the level of integration of blacklists differs across the country and between different government departments).
It typically takes 2 to 5 years to be successfully removed from a blacklist, which often has a negative impact on the privileges afforded to those individuals and businesses in society. Early removal from the list is a possibility for some, depending on the severity of the offense and whether the offending party has done enough to rectify the situation in the eyes of the relevant governing body.
In addition to being used as a metric for punishing citizens and companies for violating the country’s guidelines, the social credit system is also intended to be useful in China’s search for signs of potentially harmful behavior before it occurs.
What are the Potential Rewards of a Good Score?
On the other end of the spectrum, there are positives of the social credit system for people and corporations who are determined to be outstanding members of Chinese society. In this context, the opposite being blacklisted is to be ‘redlisted’ (also spelt ‘red-listed’). Redlisting allows citizens and companies access to certain privileges that will impact their day to day lives.
There is a range of rewards to businesses that do well in this regard, including:
Streamlined administrative procedures. For example, companies that are classified as an ‘Advanced Certificate Enterprise’ may receive faster customs clearance. ‘A-rated’ tax-payers may have their tax returns processed more quickly
Fewer inspections and audits
Fast-tracked approvals.
How is Technology Integrated within the Social Credit System?
New innovations in technology are poised to play a large role in the country’s social credit system. Artificial Intelligence (AI) facial recognition software is said to be currently utilized in tandem with over 200 million surveillance cameras in China.
Some argue that the purposes of large-scale surveillance measures is to give Chinese officials the ability to track their citizens in every facet of everyday life: In turn providing masses of data to determine whether an act worthy of being blacklisted has occurred.
Along with these physical surveillance measures, the Chinese government continues to track the online behaviors of its citizens. There are a plethora of violations Chinese officials may be looking for, including evidence of writing and sharing anti-government ideologies.
The AI software is able to do the majority of this work on behalf of the government and alert officials when a violation has occurred. The technology has advanced to a place where the AI can identify videos of anti-government protests and block users from viewing them.
Businesses must be cautious when navigating China’s compliance laws as well, as their internet data may be used against them in the event of a violation. Data that reveals a company’s lack of compliance in regards to contractual obligations are factored into and can play a significant role in determining the company’s social credit score.
It is worth noting that, generally speaking, China’s public security system and social credit system are distinct. Currently, blacklists and redlists are created via the manual inputs of officials and there is not yet any full-scale integration between the state’s security apparatus and the social credit system.
What is the Corporate Social Credit Score?
While the social credit system in China is universal in application, the policy focus to date has been on its application to companies. According to one analysis, 73 percent of policy documents released to date have been focused on the application of social credit in the corporate sector.
The goal of the corporate social credit rating is to combine data from many different sources to provide a public searchable database of companies, and to evaluate and score those companies against a list of compliance criteria.
While the corporate social credit rating is still in a development phase, the goal is to work towards a ‘Comprehensive Public Credit Rating’, which will provide an overall score for companies operating in China.
In the meantime, companies need to use a range of existing databases providing information and evaluations of companies, based on overlapping, yet distinct datasets. The databases can be national, regional, local and based on particular industries.
Businesses are assessed based on compliance, financial and audit records: More than 33 million businesses in China have been assessed to date.
Grades and ratings. Scores are currently in the development phase (these will be similar to the three-digit credit scores you may already be familiar with in other countries). However, there are four basic letter categories used: A= Excellent; B=Good; C=Average; D=Not sufficient;
Redlist/Redlisting. As discussed earlier, this is a mechanism to reward companies that are performing well;
Irregularity list. This lists companies with significant non-compliance. If a company is on this list, the authorities are paying attention to it;
Blacklisting. Blacklisted companies are classified as heavily distrusted. This categorization can result in your business license being revoked;
Unified Social Credit Code. This is your company’s unique business identifier across the different databases.
Below we look at how to check your status using a key national databases, CreditChina.
How to Check the Status or Rating of your Company using CreditChina
CreditChina is a search tool (only available from a Chinese IP Address), providing a range of information on companies and individuals. Information incorporated into its assessments includes:
Basic identifying information for the company, including the company’s Unified Social Credit Code and permits held;
Any applicable administrative penalties;
Any payment defaults recognized by the Courts;
Any instances of tax evasion and fraud;
Instances of illegal importing or exporting;
Unpaid wages
Credit China
There are several sub-databases provided, including one relating to redlisted companies, one for blacklisted companies, and one for companies with irregularities.
To proceed with checking your rating or score in CreditChina go to the CreditChina homepage as shown below:
Then, take the following steps:
Click on the ‘Credit’ tab (first item in the list) Search for the company either by name, or by Unified Social Credit Code;Insert the Unified Social Credit Code and hit ‘Search’
The record that you see, will show:
Any administrative permits held by the company;
Any administrative penalties applied to the company;
The presence of the company on redlists;
The presence of the company on blacklists;
The presence of the company on any irregularity list.
If you find ‘negative entries’ (presence on a blacklist or irregularity list), you should seek advice on how to improve your situation. Or, if you think there has been an error, you can make a complaint seeking directly to the authorities seeking a correction of your record.
How to Check the Status or Rating of your Company Using Other Databases
NECIPS is another national database, arguably not as user-friendly as CreditChina. It has the most comprehensive set of information on social credit system records, as it collects data from the most government sources. In addition, NECIPS:
Provides more comprehensive identification data relating to the company;
Allows for reporting on social credit system issues directly to the authorities.
Companies should also check local databases in the areas that they are located, as well as any subject matter-specific databases. These databases include:
The tax database that lists when companies have excellent tax-filing and payment practices;
The environmental regulatory database;
A customs database;
A procurement database.
Why Is the Corporate Social Credit System Important For Your Company?
The corporate social credit system is important for two reasons. First, you need to know who you are doing business with in China. The corporate social credit rating lets you look up potential business partners and collaborators and check their reliability. Second, understanding the corporate social credit system is essential for your own business. In order for other companies and the government to be willing to engage with you, you need to continually demonstrate that you are a compliant entity.
Looking up your corporate credit rating on the available databases is essential in order to check that you are on track. We recommend that you seek professional advice and assistance to ensure that your company can increase its ‘positive’ credit entries and decrease the number of ‘negative’ entries.
What Is the Difference Between Alibaba-Affiliated ‘Sesame Credit’ and the China Social Credit Rating?
The China social credit system is often confused with existing credit ratings provided by private credit providers. It is commonly likened to Sesame (Zhima) Credit, which is operated by Alibaba’s Ant Financial.
Note, Sesame Credit has no connection to ‘Credit Sesame’, a US-based credit and loan company.
Whilst Alibaba was involved in constructing infrastructure mechanisms for the social credit system (Alongside other Chinese ‘big tech’ firms such as Tencent and Baihe), Sesame Credit is an optional platform.It exists for the use of Alibaba group customers. Rewards include streamlined access to loans from Ant Financial, and an enhanced profile for operating on other Alibaba Group sites. It is distinguished also by its use for individuals, as opposed to businesses.
The Sesame Credit model takes into account a range of information including the individual’s payment history and debt, their ability to fulfil contractual obligations and their personal characteristics. In this respect, Sesame Credit works in a similar way to some credit systems in the United States. For example, while the most common form of credit score in the US, the FICO score, does not take into account personal characteristics, lenders often take those factors into account when implementing those scores.
What Can You do to Prepare for the Implementation of the China Social Credit System?
While some valid concerns have been expressed about the trials of the social credit system so far, the potential benefits for foreign companies looking to extend or establish their operations in China cannot be underestimated. If it works as intended, the social credit system will mean:
A leveled playing field against domestic companies. Through publicly accessible databases, foreign companies will be able to know that they are doing business with a reliable partner. This is especially important for enterprises when they first enter the China market. To date, this information was primarily known by local Chinese companies ‘in the know’;
Standardized credit ratings across China. Foreign companies will be able to have confidence that a rating given to a company in Shanghai will be based on the same factors as a credit rating given in Shenzhen.
In preparation for the implementation of the China social credit system, it is imperative that businesses both foreign and domestic understand which information they need to provide to authorities. Once this information is identified, businesses should conduct an internal audit which will allow full compliance with the necessary regulations.
In addition to these measures, businesses should prepare a supply chain audit and confirm that any business partners meet social credit guidelines.
Businesses should also analyze their IT and data security, as the transmission of this data to government bodies will need to be undertaken.
While not mandatory, businesses should assess whether their operations are conducive to the advancement of government policies. This can include measures of corporate social responsibility that align with government priorities and wider policy initiatives.
What Is the Public Perception of the Social Credit System?
As the social credit system is relatively new and unfamiliar to individuals and businesses from other countries, it may seem ‘scary’. However, a significant degreeof reporting in English-language media has been based on linguistic confusions and policy proposals that have not yet been implemented. For example, businesses do not currently get penalized for ‘frivolous spending’, as has been widely reported.
In many respects, a credit score in the United States, for example, can have just as serious consequences for individuals and businesses, as China’s social credit system: For example, access to transport can be seriously curtailed in the US due to a poor credit rating through higher insurance premiums and limited access to car loans.
Although there has been substantial resistance to the social credit system from a global perspective, it appears that most Chinese citizens approve of the system. In addition, those most familiar with the social credit system and how it is being implemented, citizens and businesses in China, are widely supportive of the system.
In one peer-reviewed study, 80% of respondents either somewhat approved or strongly approved of social credit scores. Just 1% of participants reported either strong or some degree of disapproval in the system.
It is important to note that this survey only represents Chinese internet users that participated in the survey and is not necessarily a representation of how the country feels as a whole.
From what has been outlined in the official sources, there is nothing more intrusive than what is commonly done in the West.Forrest Zhang, Professor of Sociology, Singapore Management University
Are There Overseas Equivalents to the Social Credit System?
As noted above, it has been suggested that the social credit system is not so different from forms of citizen evaluation in other countries, such as the United States. Is this true? Below we consider some of the wide-scale ‘trust’ and big data programs in other countries, and consider how they compare with elements of the China social credit system:
Australia
One of Australia’s biggest immigrant groups are New Zealanders, who are entitled to live and work in Australia for life under the terms of a ‘special category visa’, usually awarded on arrival. This visa has a ‘good character’ test which has been used to deport those resident in Australia for decades, entirely at the discretion of officials. In a recent case, this was used to detain and deport a 15 year old child. Arguably, this has some similarities with the way the China social credit system can affect freedom of movement based on anti-social behaviour.
Trustbond is a private Australian company which uses social media data to come up with a ‘trust score’. This can in turn can be used to replace traditional cash bond payments for potential renters. This has some some similarities with the way in which trials of the social credit system have used social media data to improve overall scores.
Germany’s expansive credit rating system has a significant impact on individual liberties. The ‘SCHUFA’ score (similar in some ways to the ‘FICO’ score in the United States) is necessary for renting or buying a house in Germany, borrowing, or receiving goods on credit. While the details of the score are kept secret in the interests of commercial secrecy, it has been claimed that being in a low-income area or having low-score neighbours could negatively effect your score.
It is clear that there are analogies here with the way in which the China social credit system can punish perceived ‘anti-social’ behaviours. Some would argue that the German system leaves these scores even more opaque, by allowing these decisions to be made entirely by private companies.
Similarly, some health insurance providers (health insurance is compulsory in Germany), use fitness data through apps to offer reduced insurance premiums. This has similarities with the way in which the China social credit score prioritises, and gives a higher score to, pro-social behaviours.
Its original purpose was to ensure access to welfare programs, but concerns have been raised about its use by law enforcement, as well as illegal access for commercial purposes. This has some similarities with the mass gathering of surveillance data in some trials of the China social credit System.
As is evident from the examples given above, many elements of the China social credit score are already implemented in other countries.
What is distinct about China’s system is its sheer size and breadth, as well as an overall Government strategy and direction around the collection and use of big data.
Progress on the China Social Credit System in 2021
2020 was the original target year for implementation of the China social credit system. However, a range of factors, including the impact of Covid-19, has delayed the full establishment of the system.
Throughout the course of 2020, there were four significant variations to the social credit system in response to the pandemic. Note, these changes were not applied nationally, but regionally and by municipal governments, depending on how they were impacted by the Pandemic. These included:
1. Exemptions from Penalties
Individuals or corporations that could show that breaches of contractual or tax obligations were due to Covid-19, were made exempt from the penalties for doing so.
2. Social Credit Rewards for Entities Contributing to Containment of Covid-19
Companies which could demonstrate a ‘decisive’ contribution to the fight against Covid-19 (such as those donating medical supplies) were eligible for certain rewards. This included inclusion on a ‘green list’ which streamlines administrative issues for that business.
3. Penalties for Companies Exploiting the Pandemic or Breaking Restrictions
Any businesses that could be demonstrated to have exploited the pandemic (such as engaging in price-gouging of essential materials), or the breaching of Quarantine and other Coronavirus restrictions, were penalized.
4. Simplified Loan-Granting Procedures
In certain cases, individuals or entities in industries heavily impacted by Covid-19 had simplified and speedier access to credit.
January 2021 saw the NDRC release a national guiding document for credit information reporting. This is designed to encourage the standardization of credit information reporting between provinces.
In addition, the latest 5-year ‘Plan on Building the Rule of Law in China (2020–2025)‘ sets out a vision for the connection between technology and law, as well as an intention to progress social credit legislation. As of mid-2021, this legislation is still in draft form, being considered by government departments.
In July 2021, two draft documents were released in relation to the social credit system: The National Social Credit Information Basic Catalog and the National Basic List of Punishment Measures for Untrustworthiness.
This includes a list of the information that is to be collected as part of the system, covering information related to:
Registration;
Judicial decisions and arbitration;
Administrative determinations;
Professional titles and qualifications;
Abnormal business activities;
Being on the list of “seriously untrustworthy subjects”;
Contractual performance;
Credit commitments and their fulfilment;
Credit evaluation results;
Honesty and trustworthiness;
Credit information from market entities.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the social credit system apply to foreign companies?
What is the difference between a social credit score and a social credit rating?
Does the social credit system unfairly advantage domestic companies?
Is the China social credit system reminiscent of the Black Mirror episode ‘Nosedive’?
Is the China social credit system fully automated?
What does a person’s social credit score depend on?
Does the US have a social credit score?
Does the China social credit score apply to foreigners?
Does China’s social credit system have anything in common with the economic theory/philosophy called ‘social credit’?
What is the difference between the China social credit system and the China social security system?
How do I build or increase my social credit score?
How do I repair my social credit score?
What is ‘Skynet’ and is it connected to the social credit system?
What is the impact of a tax rating?
Conclusion
The China social credit system aims to be an all-encompassing system for assessing the trustworthiness of individuals, corporations and government actors within China. To date, there is no one, unified, ‘social credit score’ held on each individual assessing their trustworthiness. Rather, there are a range of different ratings held by government departments, and individual municipal and provincial governments. However, there is an increasing level of cohesion across China with social credit ratings due to centralized information platforms. This is especially the case for corporate social credit ratings and the blacklists that relate to those ratings. By working with a local expert like New Horizons Global Partners, you can identify the type of information that you will need to provide to authorities, receive an internal audit to ensure compliance and access due diligence on potential business partners.
Endnotes
¹ For an in depth discussion of the concepts underlying China social credit see Zhang, Chenchen (2020). “Governing (through) trustworthiness: technologies of power and subjectification in China’s social credit system. Critical Asian Studies. See also Blomberg, Marianne von (2020). The Social Credit System and China’s Rule of Law. 10.1007/978-3-658-29653-7_6.
² Yu Jingming, Lin Junyue, Sun Jie (2000). National Credit Management System.Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
³ Innovation Centre Denmark, Shanghai. (2018). ‘Social credit & big data trends IN CHINA’.
⁶ For an in depth discussion of the Rongchen and Suzhou trials see Innovation Centre Denmark, Shanghai. (2018). ‘Social credit & big data trends IN CHINA’.
By now, you’ve likely seen many of your friends and family posting about conspiracy theories tied to vaccines, Bill Gates, and New World Order. If you’re anything like me you might be asking the question, “why are so many people off their rocker?”. Today, I’m going to share with you what I’ve learned about why some folks have concerns in these areas. My hope is to genuinely educate you on things that weren’t so obvious to me, that have since given me empathy and understanding for a whole group of people and causes that were otherwise not on my radar.
OVERVIEW
Bill Gates and Tedros, WHO
I’ve come to understand at least 3 major reasons people might have concerns about vaccines:
Health concerns:
Volume of vaccines
Volume of vaccine dosages
Vaccine schedules
Combination Vaccines
Ethical concerns:
Fetal tissue
Vaccine approval rigor
Vaccine trade-off value
Vaccine mandates
Vaccine producers’ lack of financial/legal liability for vaccine injuries
Vaccine as population control
Economic concerns:
Tax dollars fund Vaccine Injury Programs
Big Pharma Profiteering
ANTI-VAXXERS
When most people hear about “anti-vaxxers” they tend to think of crazy people spewing all over the camera with their grotesque pictures of aborted babies, shouting angrily about MCR-5 and vaccine injuries. Because this is what we see, we’ve been dismissive towards the rest of the anti-vaxxer movement, who is a little more…subtle.
There are highly intelligent, well-mannered, respected, professional folks who have legitimate concerns about vaccines. But finding these people is like working through a level 100 Where’s Waldo puzzle. Where are they? And why don’t we hear from them? Two reasons: (1) they don’t want to be associated with the crazy people, and (2) if someone hears that they have any reservations about vaccines whatsoever, they immediately attack them with questions like, “people used to die from polio, do you really want that back, do you?!”. As you can imagine, that’s not a great opener for engaging any reasonably-minded person in a well-respecting debate. Effectually, it’s actually quite difficult to learn about the very legitimate concerns that do exist about vaccines, because the folks who might take the time to help you understand are too apprehensive that you might judge and condemn them.
MY LOVE OF SCIENCE, MATH AND LOGIC
I grew up knowing vaccines are good. I got my vaccines on schedule. I carried around my vaccination card like a well-earned A+ report card. I kept an eye on when certain vaccines were expiring and would promptly go get a new one at the right time.
Since I was four years old, I knew two things: I wanted to build computers and be a doctor. At the age of four, I built my first computer with my dad (and have gone on to build many computers since then). But medicine in particular always had my interest above math. I was fascinated by medicine. In high school, I went through a Health Science Academy for four years,which enabled me to get Pharmacy Tech certified and CNA certified. I learned every medical prefix and suffix in the book (literally), and even spent two years learning Latin to help me better understand medical terminology. To earn my Pharmacy Technician certification, I went through two years of courses in 11th and 12th grade, and was examined by the state of Texas. I had to learn about all classes of drugs, and also vaccines. I went through many internships, at Pharmacies, at a Maxiofacial surgeon, at a retirement care community, and in all wings of the hospital, from ER, to post-op, to NICU, ICU, etc.
I proceeded to go to premed school, and was enthralled by human biology, anatomy, medicine, and the likes. I actually made the study guides in all my classes for my peers. They’d go on to make A’s on every test for which they used my guide. After a year at premed, I actually realized this wasn’t the call God had on my life (which was quite disorienting, considering I had spent the last 5 years dedicated to premed programs, and had spent the last 16 years knowing I would be a doctor).
I pulled out of med school and found my way to Psychology, wherehe . My teachers would give me essay assignments with requirements like “minimum 13 pages and 3 references” and I was the guy who would ask “can I have 20 pages and 12 references?”. Most students were making their periods in sentences bigger as a trick to make it look like their papers were longer: I made my periods smaller to give myself more room to write. One day, I opened literally every paper relevant to my research on the Ebsco research database in a tab on Chrome. I read every one of those research papers.
In my statistics class, our teacher gave us the ability to use an Excel Spreadsheet to solve for the really challenging problems, but I preferred paper and pen, because I knew the answer would be 100% accurate if I worked it out myself and relied on pure math to find the right answer.
I ended up also with a minor in Biblical Studies, with a focus on exegetical Biblical text. I’d spent countless hours reading the Hebrew and Greek origins of words, pouring over the historical context so that I could draw the historical bridge, and would eventually map everything together to illustrate the connectedness of it all.
And today, I lead an engineering team of 35 people distributed in at least 12 countries. I’m the top-level director, responsible for estimating projects from $300k-$2M in size, ranging 3mo to 18mo in duration, and for teams ranging in size from 5-20 people. Our margins are razor thin, so if my projections are off by the slightest, our company could be devastated. Instead, in the last four years we’ve quadrupled revenue, increasing our team size from 15 to 70 people. The growth has been massive. But we’ve stayed profitable and debt free because of our attention to detail, the thoroughness of our research, and the follow through on commitment, of which I’m chiefly responsible.
For the free time I have outside of managing my team, I spend much of my time in spreadsheets creating forecasting models, and also doing research on emerging technology. On average, I’ve learned one new computer language every 3 months the last 6 years (when I had gotten my start in engineering, I had learned 6 languages in just two weeks).
The point I’m trying to make is that I am a research, math and science guy if you’ve ever met one. I trust in facts, not hypotheses; evidence, not narratives; logic, not feelings. If it weren’t for my faith in Jesus Christ, my faith would be wholly in math, science and logic. Thankfully, God had room for me in His family. My love of God, and faith in Him, however, doesn’t change anything about my love and appreciation for math and science. That’s who God made me at the core. I believe in the rigor of research, the reliability of math, and the soundness of logic and reason. Knowing God has simply positioned my trust in Him before human reason, and above reason when in conflict. But if it weren’t for God’s grace over me, you’d probably think I was Spock’s offspring or worse, even his father.
On My knee-jerk reaction was that these people were loonies. I did some research at the time, and was able to verify their claims that some vaccines had aborted baby tissue in them. That made me sick, and certainly made me for the first time ask the question, “what’s in vaccines?”. I had never asked that before. Not once. I just knew they were good. I researched a little more, wrestled with the topic of vaccines, and ended up deciding that when I had kids I’d look more into it with an open mind — but that by and large, most vaccines are still good.
That was a decade ago. The last few months, I began researching vaccines again. This time around, I’ve applied the same level of rigor that I’ve always applied to research, math, science, logic and reason. I’ve spent at least 100 hours in the last 1-2 months, and quite honestly, I’m just now starting to scratch the surface. There’s so much that I don’t yet know, so many sources and references I haven’t stored that I need to go back and save, and so much that I have yet to validate or invalidate.
But, from what I’ve learned so far, I’m convinced thatwe should at minimum be asking questions about vaccines. I’ve written my bonafides above so that you know in full faith and confidence, that I’m likely the most skeptical person you will meet when it comes to changing my opinion, especially on something as central as vaccines, for which in the last 26 years I have accepted as right and true without question. I’m a hardcore “INTJ” personality type: known for being unwilling to change, for always thinking I’m right, and for being out of touch with feeling and emotion. While God has tempered me with grace to love and care for those around me, my affinity for being persuaded by anything less than logic and reason (outside of faith) is exactly zero.
Below, I’ll share a high-level overview about why we should be concerned about some vaccines, and why,we should be engaged with our government to ensure that our kids and grandkids won’t grow up in a world where the government mandates vaccine injections. I’ll keep each of these relatively short and include resources below if you want to dig in to learn more.
A. HEALTH CONCERNS
1. VOLUME OF VACCINES
When I was born (1988), the recommended vaccine schedule included four vaccines:
Diphtheria, tetanus, & acellular pertussis
Inactivated poliovirus
Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)
Haemophilus influenzae type b
Today, the vaccine schedule has tripled to fifteen vaccines:
Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
Diphtheria, tetanus, & acellular pertussis
Haemophilus influenzae type b
Pneumococcal conjugate
Inactivated poliovirus
Influenza (IIV) / Influenza (LAIV)
Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)
Varicella
Hepatitis A
Tetanus, diphtheria, & acellular pertussis
Human papillomavirus
Meningococcal
Meningococcal B
Pneumococcal polysaccharide
2. VOLUME OF VACCINE DOSAGES
When I was born,the number of vaccine dosages was 15.
The number of vaccine dosages has tripled to 44.
3. VACCINE SCHEDULES
When I was born, the schedule for when to administer vaccines was less aggressive. The CDC at the time did not have an official schedule for when to administer the doses based on age of the baby. That changed in 1995.
Today, the vaccine schedule recommends 27 doses of vaccines prior to the age of 15mo, with 17 of those prior to 6mo old.
4. COMBINATION VACCINES
Some vaccines have been combined in high concentration doses. For example, Measles, Mumps and Rubella each had their own vaccine available. In the 70s-80s, these vaccines were combined into one highly concentrated vaccine, referred to as MMR. Many are concerned about injecting this high concentration of vaccine all at once into small, developing babies. Vaccine producers have taken the individual vaccines off the market and only offer the combination vaccine.
SUMMARY
In my personal research, I’ve seen an overwhelming number of stories of people’s babies who are otherwise healthy, engaged, and developing, but experience immediate seizure and disengagement upon receiving the MMR vaccine, resulting in autism. Similarly, there are an overwhelming number of people who have been paralyzed after receiving the Human papillomavirus vaccine. These are referred to as Vaccine Injuries, and these aren’t the only two vaccines that cause them.It’s challenging for parents with infants to prove that a vaccine caused an injury, because lawyers will often make the case that there’s no way to know that the vaccine caused autism since the baby is so young and still developing. I’ve scoured the web looking at many before and after narratives, with videos and pictures to boot, and there’s ample evidence that there is in fact a sudden and massive change in other-wise happy babies.
If that’s not enough though, given the Human papillomavirus vaccine is administered around 11-12 years old (or even as young as 9), it’s much more challenging for lawyers to make the case that an otherwise healthy 15 year old who became paralyzed after taking the vaccine wasn’t the cause of the vaccine. Here’s what’s most disturbing about the vaccines for HPV: the virus is only transmitted via sex, and especially via anal sex. The CDC recommends administering this vaccine automatically to all women — I should say, “adolescent girls” — between the ages of 11-12, and even as young as 9. Further, the virus is found in most cases to go away on it’s own, it’s rare that it results in the deadly condition of Cervical Cancer. On their page for the HPV Vaccine, the CDC sites that 12,000 women are diagnosedwith Cervical Cancer each year — but HPV isn’t the only cause of Cervical Cancer, it’s one of many.How many cases were a result of HPV? Even still, the number is massively low: 12,000 cases and 4,000 deaths. But, they recommend every young girl in America receive the vaccine — and there are many stories of parents whose daughters contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome within 2 weeks of being vaccinated for HPV specifically with Gardasil. Gardasil happens to be the only vaccine available for HPV. At least three states (Rhode Island, Virginia, and District of Columbia) have passed legislation mandating children be vaccinated with Gardasil by 7th grade. Many more states have put forward legislation.Gardasil is one of the darling vaccines in the Merck Co. inventory, and in 2018 alone generated $3,000,000,000+ ($3B ) in revenue.
There’s such a high number of people who report vaccine injuries, that in 1988, the federal government and CDC stood up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to deal with the mass number of cases reported. The Compensation Program offers payment only with a ‘no fault’ stipulation, as a means to silence people who have experienced vaccine injuries.Since 1988, $4,027,385,399.60 ($4B) has been disbursed to vaccine injury claims and another$216,791,324.93 ($200M) paid to legal fees for the United States Government providing lawyers to defend against these claims on behalf of vaccine producers.
In this post, I’m not going deep into theVaccine Injury data, although it’s quite voluminous. Instead, I thought I’d simply highlight that there’s been a very recent and rapid spike in the volume of vaccines, doses and acceleration of schedules, coupled with massive amount of injury claims being paid out to individuals. That’s enough to make me go, “hmm…”. If you are interested in stories from people who have experienced Vaccine Injury, check out the movie Vaxxed and Vaxxed 2.If it’s all just rubbish, it’ll be a good laugh for you. If it’s not, perhaps you’ll something.
Aborted baby fetal tissue samples from two babies (tissues referred to as MRC-5 and WI-38) are used in the production of at least four widely distributed vaccines (name of the vaccine manufactures who use the aborted fetal tissue referenced next to the vaccine name). Many object morally to using aborted baby tissue in vaccines. Some of these vaccines are mandated, which presents special challenges for those who morally object:
Hepatitis A vaccines [VAQTA/Merck, Havrix/GlaxoSmithKline, and part of Twinrix/GlaxoSmithKline]
Rubella vaccine [MERUVAX II/Merck, part of MMR II/Merck, and ProQuad/Merck]
Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine [Varivax/Merck, and part of ProQuad/Merck]
Zoster (shingles) vaccine [Zostavax/Merck]
These are just the vaccines produced through these two widely known strains of aborted fetal tissue. There are many more tissues from other aborted babies that are also used in widely administered vaccines (you can do your own googling on these!).
2. VACCINE APPROVAL RIGOR
Vaccines don’t go through the same rigor of testing that pharmaceutical drugs approved by the FDA go through.Specifically, vaccines don’t necessarily go through placebo studies.This means that when a new vaccine comes out, or if it’s been out for 50 years, scientists refuse to test the efficacy of the vaccine against the natural immunity of individuals’ who do not have the vaccine (nor of the side effect comparisons). Because of this, it is nearly impossible to link vaccine injuries to vaccines, because researchers refuse to test against placebos. So, when a new vaccine comes out, if there’s an increase in autism because of the vaccine, you wouldn’t know that necessarily because everyone would have received the vaccine, so it looks like the entire population just had an uptick in autism (for other nefarious reasons). This makes it nearly impossible to hold accountable any vaccine producer against the side effects and injuries their vaccines produce. It also makes it harder to trust the vaccines.
These scientists cite the reason for their objection to placebo studies as it being “unethical” to not give their wonderful mana-from-heaven vaccine to the children of the world. After all, their vaccine saves lives. So, we should just trust that the vaccine saves lives and not question the integrity of their work. After all, they are scientists. Scientists never make mistakes.
Some have challenged scientists on this notion, in that there are many parents who would be willing to not give a vaccine to their children, because they specifically do not want the vaccine. The objection from scientists in this case is that the parents are pre-disposed to a bias, and they cannot trust the results of the test because the parent will add confirmation bias to the results.
3. VACCINE TRADEOFF VALUE
The diseases that many of the newer vaccines on the vaccine schedule treat are low in number of affected cases and mortality rate.For example, there’s a few vaccines that treat diseases that might affect 50,000 of the population in the United States (of 323M) with less than 200 deaths. Does it really make sense to vaccinate 323M people for something that is this rare? As we see the vaccine schedule growing so large, you have to wonder if at some point if it’s worth the risk of all those chemicals in our body to protect ourselves against infections and diseases for which we have an incredibly low chance of getting, and even lower chance of dying from.
4. VACCINE MANDATES
Vaccines have become increasingly mandated by state and local governments. In most states, a child cannot attend public and many private schools without providing evidence that they have received the minimum required vaccines. In many states, a parent not providing vaccines can be constituted as Medical Neglect meaning that a parent can lose rights to their children and even be fined and serve jail time for choosing to not vaccinate their children.
5. VACCINE PRODUCERS’ LACK OF FINANCIAL/LEGAL LIABILITY FOR VACCINE INJURIES
Earlier, I mentioned theVaccine Injury Compensation Program established in 1988. Interestingly, this program offers 100% protection to Vaccine producers from any lawsuits from vaccine injuries (including mandated vaccines),and instead,holds the United States government liable financially but not criminally for any injury (thus, no one can be held criminally liable for vaccine injuries). I mentioned earlier that this is a “no fault” program, meaning those who file must maintain the explicit understanding and make clear that they do not hold the Vaccine producers at fault for their claim of injury (this is the only way they could be eligible to receive financial recompense — and of course, if a vaccine really did cause autism, it’s highly likely they would be dependent on the financial recompense to help offset the challenge of raising an autistic child).
The logic for absolving vaccine producers from having any culpability whatsoever is that in the 80s, there were so many people filing suits against vaccine companies, that these vaccine producers were getting buried in legal fees and payouts. They couldn’t afford to stay in business, producing more (questionable) vaccines, with all the claims of injuries. The United States decided to bail them out permanently — offering amnesty, hall pass, whatever you want to call it — so that they never have to face the consequence of any of their actions. Margaret Sanger published “My Way To Peace”a pretty dangerous recipe for mistakes. We’ve removed accountability on both book-ends of the process (pre-release-testing and post-administration-audits).
6. VACCINE AS POPULATION CONTROL
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is now the #1 Contributor to the WHO (was second to the United States until Trump pulled back funding this year). In addition, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested $11B in philanthropic efforts, with most of that going towards vaccine production, and a large chunk of that focused on vaccine production in Africa and Southeast Asia.
Massive research has been performed by the WHO on human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) vaccines (informally known as sterilization vaccines). Researchers have discovered hCG presence in vaccines administered to people in developing countries (specifically, on tetanus vaccines). More concerning, women have been found to have been sterilized through the administration of vaccines (like the tetanus vaccine) in those developing countries.
Some researchers and philanthropologists (especially Bill Gates) have theorized that CO2 emmissions from people is one of the most damaging contributors to Climate Change, and have set out on a mission to solve the problem. Most notably, these researchers (led by Bill Gates and the WHO) have deemed Africa and Southeast Asia as the most responsible countries for contributing to overpopulation by 2050 (and thus, climate change), and have committed to reducing the population curve in these countries — specifically through contraceptive “options”.
In 2010, Bill Gates led a TED talk describing the relationship between increased health, vaccines and decreased population. Years later, he clarified his intention in this relationship, describing that he believes when people are healthier they’ll choose to have less kids.
Then, in 2015, Bill Gates hosted a convention in Berlin, Germany with worldwide leaders (funders, academia, regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations, vaccine manufacturers, and Ministries of Health from Africa and Asia) focused on increasing vaccine administration in developing countries, specifically Southeast Asia and Africa. The convention was explicitly focused on maternal immunization (MI) against influenza, pertussis, and tetanus. In lay-mens terms, the convention was focused on how to administer influenza, pertussis and tetanus vaccines to pregnant women in Southeast Asia and Africa. The convention cited that the #1 challenge to administering the vaccine to these pregnant women was in fact resistance and objection by those pregnant women. The convention goes on to demonstrate that not enough evidence is yet available to demonstrate the efficacy or safety of the MI program, but after they administer to enough women and collect evidence (hopefully supporting their hypotheses), they will be able to use this evidence to generate greater demand from more individuals in those regions. To offset the challenge of overcoming objection from the pregnant women, the convention leaders asserted that they will need to leverage family members, tribal elders and religious leaders to critically influence community acceptance for the MI program to not just the pregnant women, but the entire community.
This isn’t the first time Bill Gates has heard of this technique of leveraging a woman’s community to propagate acceptance of immunization. Bill Gates’ father, Bill Gates Senior, served on local and national boards for Planned Parenthood leading up to Roe v. Wade. Many attribute his efforts and advocacy within Planned Parenthood as a boon for the pro-choice “victory” out of Roe v. Wade. When asked how he came to be passionate about reproductive issues as a philanthropic effort, Bill Gates references the efforts of his mom and dad, and specifically referenced the work they did in Planned Parenthood leading up to Roe v. Wade. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,wrote a letter in 1939 to Clarence Gambel stating the following,“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal…We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”So the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, 76 years later, takes a pretty similar approach in Africa for the MI program,using tetanus, which has been known to be a a disguised carrier for hCG sterilization.
But this isn’t the only thing concerning about Bill Gates’ ties to Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood a few different times under different names, and even retreated to Germany in the midst of WWII for safe haven from the United States government for her practicing of eugenics on African Americans. Specifically, her goal was to limit population and reproduction of African Americans. The third time she started the organization, it was thus named Planned Parenthood. And her legacy lives today.79% of all Planned Parenthood facilities are within walking distance of African American communities. According to a study by the CDC in 2015, since 1969, Black women have the highest abortion rate of any other race, consisting of 36% of all abortions in the United States (African American population is ~12%). Let me say that another way: 12% of the population is responsible for 36% of all abortions.
In 1932, Margaret Sangerpublished “My Way To Peace”, postulatingtoCongress to “direct and control the population through Birth rates and immigration”.
Three of her main objectives were as follows:
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents,the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
(f) thewhole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.
Margaret Sangerpublished “My Way To Peace”
That Bill Gates derives his philanthropic loins from his father’s service in Planned Parenthood, during which time he helped Planned Parenthood win Roe v Wade, which has effectively resulted in ~62M abortions, 19M of which from African Americans — and that Bill Gates has invested $11B towards producing vaccines in Africa and Southeast Asia for the purpose of population control, and that he would focus on using the tetanus shot as one of three primary vaccines (which has been proven in developing countries to contain hCG sterilization) in specifically African pregnant women — is highly questionable and concerning.
People ask me: “why do you share this kind of knowledge” and I’ll tell you why. If there’s the smallest chance that there exists a man who is intentionally sterilizing women in developing countries against their knowledge and will, I believe we should fight against such an oppressor in prayer and otherwise. I believe that falls in the category of James 1:27, to fight for widows and orphans — to fight for the least of these.
The United States has paid out $4B in vaccine injury claims and $200M in legal fees since 1988 on behalf of vaccine producers. Where does Uncle Sam get his money? Taxpayers, not vaccine producers, pay the price for vaccine injuries.
2. BIG PHARMA PROFITEERING
Meanwhile, vaccine manufactures are on schedule to earn $60,000,000,000 ($60B) in 2020 alone. Since they aren’t bogged down with dealing with pesky lawsuits, they can focus on generating more vaccines to add to the schedule.
Let’s take a quick look at how Coronavirus has affected stocks for seven of the biggest Vaccine producers.
Three of the biggest 10 vaccine producers are Novavax, Inovio, and Vir Biotechnology. Since Coronavirus, these three companies’ stock has skyrocketed:
Wow! If you look closely, you’ll see these companies experience a massive spike in growth around January-March. It’s quite natural that we would see vaccine stock markets increase due to COVID. But what’s interesting is not all vaccine company stock markets experienced this spike. In fact, these three are the outliers. What do these three share in common?They are all backed by Bill Gatesfor a collective $244M.
Here’s what the stocks look like for the #1, #2, #3 and #4 revenue producing vaccine producers:
The common thread we see here is a big dip. None of them expected Coronavirus, they all experienced massive disruption in their business and are now recovering.Why did they experience a dip? Logically: people stopped going to hospitals to get their regular vaccines and sales plummeted overnight.
If you look at the stock for the firms Bill Gates has heavily invested in, you see the inverse: there’s actually a spike. As if they were ready for Coronavirus to hit. Why is this?
Speaking of, Bill Gates in 2015 predicted this pandemic, nearly to the tee: A flu-based pandemic by around 2020 flu-based pandemic, of the weight and gravity of the 1918 Spanish Flu. He’s been leveraging this prediction to convince people of the need for a worldwide vaccine. He’s specifically been at work to ensure vaccine distribution is ready to go in Africa and Southeast Asia. We also see a massive acceleration in his financial investments in vaccine organizations starting in 2015. This overlaps well with the Berlin convention in 2015 where he asserted the biggest challenge with vaccinating pregnant women is their objection to being vaccinated.
Be on the lookout for any research that suggests pregnant women are especially at risk of Coronavirus, it wouldn’t surprise me if the CDC and WHO recommend a pregnancy specific vaccines for Cornavirus in the next year. It wouldn’t surprise me if Bill Gates graciously offers to donate another $10B to getting this vaccine to Africa and Southeast Asia.
He sure is great at predicting the future — and many still believe his intentions are pure. What do you think?
Vaccines wouldn’t be a concern of mine if they weren’t mandatory in the United States and if they weren’t seemingly being used to propitiate sterilization of ethnic groups in developing countries.
I’d like to reiterate one thing in all of this: this is just scratching the surface. The amount of data I’ve combed through, the evidence, hours-and-hours of testimony from individuals — it’s overwhelming. I’ve included only references in here which are either neutral or pro-vaccine. I’ve specifically not included references to data in here that is clearly anti-vaccine. I’ve done this on purpose so that you may look at the data that is skewed in favor of pro-vaccines and make a determination for yourself if you have any concerns based on the best case scenarios.
Personally, in reviewing the data, I’m alarmed by the interconnectedness of what we are seeing. Coupled with the increased censorship from Facebook, the WHO, the CDC and Google, who all appear to be in lock-step, it’s hard to know what to do with all of this information. I’ve often debated internally: “should I just be silent about this?” and “of what value does this provide?”
But, I’m continually convicted of the following nine beliefs, and I cannot shake these nor be silent:
I’m concerned by the harmfulness of many vaccines
I’m concerned by the lack of good science behind testing vaccines
I’m concerned by the lack of accountability beholden to vaccine producers
I’m concerned by any group of people who would attempt to sterilize any person or group of peoples
I’m increasingly concerned by the calls for a worldwide vaccine, especially one that is mandated
I feel morally compelled to share these convictions with others, so they themselves can decide if they want to subject themselves and their families to vaccines
I feel morally compelled to pray often for our government leaders to be surrounded by God-fearing, righteous men and women, and to be removed from the sphere of influence of anyone who does not daily submit themselves before the Lord
I feel civilly compelled to figure out how to create awareness in our communities so that we can elect officials who are committed to tackling these concerns, and also advocate to already elected officials to do something about it; and to not just stop in our own communities, but to change our laws so that we are better able to hold accountable vaccine producers — and keep big money out of influencing what we do with vaccines, and how we do it
I feel morally obligated to figure out what my role is in helping prevent the oppression of widows and orphans in developing countries from rich and powerful men who have clearly stated their objective to reduce population in those developing countries
To be clear, I have no quarrel with anyone who is pro-vaccine. In fact, when produced with upmost ethical standards, it’s quite sensible to me that people would be highly interested in vaccines. However, I also seek to preserve independent medical freedom for individuals to weigh both the science and the testimonies of those who have had vaccines — and to decide what the best course of action is for them and their families. On a personal level, I feel responsible for the safety of my own family.
One indication that the government is not in tune with safe vaccine protocols is that they still maintain a “no fault” policy on vaccines, and refer only to vaccine “allergic reactions” without acknowledging the many diseases, illnesses and deaths they do clearly cause. Despite this, it’s clear to me that there are people out there who think it best for the government to decide what is safest — that we as individuals should not maintain that freedom. I am unequivocally against these people and will oppose them at every measure
Kakistocracy: noun, government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.
The old saying goes that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. So you might think that during a 50-year political career, the odds would dictate that Joe Biden would, once in a blue moon, make a correct decision — just based on the odds. But you’d be mistaken. Biden has stumbled and bumbled from one disastrous decision to the next. Disastrous, that is, for America. Biden himself has prospered handsomely in spite of his glaring incompetence and corruption.
Biden’s long Senate career was based on being the credit card companies’ man in Washington. While crowing endlessly about the working class being “his people,” Biden sponsored bills allowing bank issuers to charge egregious interest rates and to make it harder for working men to escape the credit trap through bankruptcy.
When Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, he turned the confirmation of Clarence Thomas into a political smear campaign that descended into a degenerate three-ring circus. In his first campaign for president, he failed to garner a single percentage point before having to withdraw when confronted with his past lies and blatant plagiarism. He literally stole a speech detailing a British politician’s life story. He ran again in 2008 but again failed to reach even one percent of the vote.
When Barack Obama took him off the primary trash heap to make him vice president, Biden first made a hash out of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, wasting hundreds of billions on boondoggles and giveaways to Democrat cronies. Little of the recovery billions was spent on anything useful to America. Biden went on to manage our relations with China and Ukraine, pocketing untold millions for himself and his family by selling out America’s security interests.
By the time he ran for president again in 2020 he was a spent husk of his former corrupt and incompetent self, delivering asinine performances in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. When the Democrat establishment propped him up to once again stop Bernie Sanders, Biden was set up for the strangest presidential campaign in modern history. While Donald Trump barnstormed the nation with packed, enthusiastic rallies, Biden cowered in his basement, occasionally venturing out to speak with a few dozen voters sitting in circles drawn on the floor.
For his vice presidential pick, he chose — if you can believe it — an even more buffoonish candidate than himself.
Had it not been for Mark Zuckerberg buying and staffing government election offices in swing states, and the media and Big Tech’s censorship of the Biden family’s corruption, Biden would now be enjoying his dotage in Delaware, creeping on unsuspecting children with yarns of Corn Pop and South African arrests.
Instead, the man with one of the most astonishing records of abject failure in Washington was installed in the White House, and he has remained true to form. As one of a hundred senators and then as vice president, there was a limit to how much damage he could do. But as president, the shackles have been removed.
His first agenda item was to throttle our oil and gas sector, offshoring tens of thousands of good paying jobs to Russia and the Middle East — along with our energy independence. He threw open our southern border and encouraged virtually unlimited illegal immigration — during a global pandemic.
Biden’s “defund the police” rhetoric delivered us soaring violent crime in Democrat-run cities, while he sicced federal law enforcement on parents who object too strenuously to their children being indoctrinated with anti-White racism and LGBTQIA+ ideology.
It can truly be said that as president, Biden’s record of failure remains unblemished.
But now comes what may be the capstone on Biden’s long history of buffoonery and corruption. In Ukraine, we have an armed conflict that threatens to plunge the world into an economic depression and raises the specter of nuclear war. Not only did Biden set the stage for this calamity when, as vice president, he was in charge of Ukraine policy and led Kiev to believe that NATO membership was in Ukraine’s future, but on the eve of the Russian invasion, he refused to admit that it was not. Then Biden all but admitted to Vladimir Putin — on live TV, no less — that NATO would not defend Ukraine if Russia chose to invade.
In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion, Biden and his administration have crafted sanctions that seem almost designed to boomerang on America’s and Europe’s fragile post-pandemic economies, while forcing Russia into a deeper alliance with China.
With the U.S. over $31 trillion in debt, Biden seems totally oblivious to the perilous position of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the consequences should that privileged position end.
Economists predict that food and gasoline will cost the average U.S. household an additional $3,000 this year, and inflation threatens to push millions of lower-middle income-earners into abject poverty.
And bumbling, corrupt Joe Biden isn’t yet halfway through his first — and please God, last — term.
The Trailblazing Patriot 
