Untrue, you are getting confused by the priority date. He patented a system for wearablr.device based medical data collection in 2015, and in 2020 filed for a patent based on his earloer filing.
There is literally nothing to ser here. If you want to make a real case for Rothschild involvement you will need something else.
Because I'd like other people to think more about what they're doing and why.
In other words, other people jumped on the hatewagon, so you feel a need to too, but can't rationally explain why.
Why is this bad?
They need DDoS protection.
As a citizen, would you rather have your government in the middle or Russia?
What needs protection against Russia are legitimate state and technological secrets. Wtf do I care if Russia reads what i want to say, so long as i can actually fucking say it?
This. Thank you
I don't understand the Pence hate.
I don't like the guy, he's just one more scummy politician to me, but I read the Constitution. It sounds to me like people expected him to do something that is not actually supported by the Constitution.
I've seen a stat in the past that 1℅ get reported
The number of deaths is certainly higher than is reported but no, i am saying that these stata do not say, as it has been taken here, that 2.37℅ of the people who take the vaccine die.
You understand that you don't need to endorse mistaken interpretations to see that they're underreporting deaths and other adverse events, right?
A tiny fraction of adverse events get reported.
Of those that do get reported, they are proportionately more likely to be more serious.
OP and most of you guys are reading this wrong.
This is percentage of reported adverse events.
A number of people will get the vaccine.
A subset of those people will have adverse events.
A subset of those people will report them (or be reported on by medical authorities).
2.37% of this subset have died.
I do not support the vaccine. But let's be reasonable in our criticisms.
Sounds like a dubious quote to me.
Spreadsheets would be great.
They thought it was funny and apropos to steal votes from the despised white male. It let them feel that high treason was social justice.
Soldiers are mostly honorable. The brass is not.
It's not the fault of the naive and trusting soldiery that they've been misspent.
Not a real quote.
disgusting. thanks for posting this
Thank you for saying this. We should notice the issues being pointed out with disproportionate black criminality and other problems, but the tone we take shouldn't make less of them or us.
i also agree with other posters though that whites have become the only unprotected group in political discourse and subsequent policy.
We should also take care that in pursuing the best interests of blacks we aren't aping the left's pandering act for kudos. And that it isn't a disproportionate fuss while whites go under the bus.
I don't care about advancing white interests in particular but I do care about protecting people from that kind of attack. We need to advance both black interests and white interests in harmony as American interests. God knows the lapdog left won't and can't.
Knock this nonsense off. Face reality.
Your loss.
The Khazar thing is untrue.
And Jews do have a dominant influence on world finance.
Sure, happy hunting.
Yeah, that's the list from Schauf but it's nonsense.
Unfortunately, we can't actually know who, ultimately, owns the fed. This is by design.
The fed is actually 14 different entities, 3 of which are important. 12 regional banks (the one in New York having real importance), the board and the open market committee.
The NY fed is the principle node of activity.
When it is said that private banks own the fed, this is true: they own shares in the regional fed banks, not the board or fomc, which are not share held entities.
So, what most concerns us, then, is who owns shares in the NY fed. This is supposed to be based on capital and surplus (cash on reserve, which banks tend to avoid) of member banks (nearly all banks in the region).
The biggest owners are usually citi, jp morgan and chase manhattan. This fluctuates more by surplus than capital.
Shares in this sense dont really give the banks much benefit. They only get 6℅ of the Fed's profits. 94℅ goes to the Treasury. Nor do these shares confer control; in electing the directors of the Fed banks, each member bank gets a vote, regardless of size. The problems with the Fed lie elsewhere than the shareholding pattern.
As you have probably already surmised, since each bank gets a vote, what's to stop concentrated financial power from simply owning many different banks and thus votes? Nothing, of course. Except captured regulators (the fed) issuing licenses, as keeps down the competition to the founding cabal. And nothing keeps them from obscuring their ownership to the public and even to the government.
The financial game is enshrined behind many layers of secrecy, or as they prefer, financial privacy.
Does one imagine, for instance, that when Forbes or Bloomberg wishes to tell us who the wealthiest people are that they actually are? Apart from why publications owned by oligarchs would be honest with us if they knew... how would they know in the first place? How would anyone? The only records they can consult are the SEC's schedule 13d and g filings. They tell us who owns more than 5℅ of a publicly traded company.
A great deal of wealth is in privately owned companies whose shares are unavailable to the public and thus whose ownership is undocumented where anyone but their lawyers, bankers and accountants are concerned.
Beyond that, this reporting doesn't substantively cover real beneficial ownership-the ultimate owners of stock. It is very easy for large owners to disguise their ownership behind a maze of shell companies and nominee owners, onshore and offshore. That aside, what if an individual owned 4℅ of several huge companies, even without the shell game? That would be massive wealth but unless they trumpeted it they'd go unlisted and we'd never know.
Beyond that, the info we (and Forbes, etc) get from the SEC only covers stock, not bonds and hybrid instruments, nor derivative positions. These greatly exceed the stock market, but are completely dark to us.
Because of the shell game, even the IRS has no idea who really owns what.
A few legislative committee have commissioned reports that scratch the surface of the banking racket, like Wright Patman's.
The one that examined Nelson Rockefeller's candidacy also accidentally took a peek.
Good books on the fed include those by Antony Sutton, Eustace Mullins, G. Edward Griffin and Murray Rothbard.
We can get a good idea who really runs the financial system from knowing who set it up in the first place.
I've read virtually everything there is to read on them. They may very well be at the top of the food chain; if they aren't then they are representatives of those who are.
But that does not make this patent an issue. Actually, the opposite - mixing up false nothingburgers with the truth tarnishes it.