Posts
Once again you can put away your tinfoil hats
What he was warning of in the first part of the year does not seem to be seem so outrageous in hindsight.
Your Search History Will Determine Your Financial Credit Score In Future, Says IMF
A new white paper by the IMF calls for linking your search history to your financial credit score, which would in effect lower your score if you visit websites marked harmful by their fact-checkers.
In a new blog post for the International Monetary Fund, four researchers presented their findings from a working paper (read below) that examines the current relationship between finance and tech as well as its potential future.
The researchers propose using the data from your browsing, search, and purchase history to create a mechanism for determining the credit rating of an individual or business.
The plan is outlined in a blog written by Arnoud Boot, Peter Hoffmann, Luc Laeven and Lev Ratnovski, pitching the Orwellian notion as a breakthrough in financial technology (Fintech).
Fintech resolves the dilemma by tapping various nonfinancial data: the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases. Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion.
Overall, while much of the technological progress in finance is evolutionary, its pace is accelerating fast. Fintech’s potential to reach out to over a billion unbanked people around the world, and the changes in the financial system structure that this can induce, can be revolutionary.
Governments should follow and carefully support the technological transition in finance. It is important to adjust policies accordingly and stay ahead of the curve.
Gizmodo commented on the proposal and its mortifying consequences if it were actually implemented on a grand scale.
The researchers acknowledge that there will be privacy and policy concerns related to incorporating this kind of soft-data into credit analysis. And they do little to explain how this might work in practice. The paper isn’t long, and it’s worth a read just to wrap your mind around some of the notions of fintech’s future and why everyone seems to want in on the payments game.
As it is, getting the really fine soft-data points would probably require companies like Facebook and Apple to loosen up their standards on linking unencrypted information with individual accounts. How they might share information with other institutions would be its own can of worms.
However, the policy seems to be designed to bring an end to alternate news media with grave consequences for those engaged with the organisation.
In a new blog post for the International Monetary Fund, four researchers presented their findings from a working paper (read below) that examines the current relationship between finance and tech as well as its potential future.
The researchers propose using the data from your browsing, search, and purchase history to create a mechanism for determining the credit rating of an individual or business.
The plan is outlined in a blog written by Arnoud Boot, Peter Hoffmann, Luc Laeven and Lev Ratnovski, pitching the Orwellian notion as a breakthrough in financial technology (Fintech).
Fintech resolves the dilemma by tapping various nonfinancial data: the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases. Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion.
Overall, while much of the technological progress in finance is evolutionary, its pace is accelerating fast. Fintech’s potential to reach out to over a billion unbanked people around the world, and the changes in the financial system structure that this can induce, can be revolutionary.
Governments should follow and carefully support the technological transition in finance. It is important to adjust policies accordingly and stay ahead of the curve.
Gizmodo commented on the proposal and its mortifying consequences if it were actually implemented on a grand scale.
The researchers acknowledge that there will be privacy and policy concerns related to incorporating this kind of soft-data into credit analysis. And they do little to explain how this might work in practice. The paper isn’t long, and it’s worth a read just to wrap your mind around some of the notions of fintech’s future and why everyone seems to want in on the payments game.
As it is, getting the really fine soft-data points would probably require companies like Facebook and Apple to loosen up their standards on linking unencrypted information with individual accounts. How they might share information with other institutions would be its own can of worms.
However, the policy seems to be designed to bring an end to alternate news media with grave consequences for those engaged with the organisation.
From the horse's mouth
https://blogs.imf.org/2020/12/17/what-is-really-new-in-fintech/
Just one more 'minor' detail that Icke got right.
WHO Finally Admits COVID19
PCR Test Has A ‘Problem’
17 December, 2020
In a statement released on December 14, 2020 the World Health Organization finally owned up to what 100,000’s of doctors and medical professionals have been saying for months: the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 is a hit and miss process with way too many false positives.
This WHO-admitted “Problem” comes in the wake of international lawsuits exposing the incompetence and malfeasance of public health officials and policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not fit for purpose.
This World Health Organization admission is that the crux of the “problem” is a wholly arbitrary cycling process which “means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.” [emphasis added]
The UN body is now clearly looking to distance itself from the fatally flawed test as a growing number of lawsuits are processing through the courts exposing the insanity of relying on a test that even the inventor, Professor Kary B. Mullis said was never designed to diagnose diseases. [1]
Professor Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993. ‘Coincidentally’, Mullis died just before the pandemic started.
We reported on November 22, 2020 that a landmark court case in Portugal had ruled that the polymerase chain reaction test (PCR) used worldwide to diagnose COVID-19 was not fit for purpose. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.
As Off-Guardian.org reported at the time:
“In their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by Jaafar et al., which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.
The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. Governments and private labs have been very tight-lipped about the exact number of cycles they run when PCR testing, but it is known to sometimes be as high as 45. Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated anything over 35 is totally unusable.”
You can read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese here, and translated into English here.
Among thousands of angry doctors arguing PCR tests should not be used is Dr. Pascal Sacré. He wrote that:
“This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”
Clear and conclusive scientific evidence proves that these tests are not accurate and create a statistically significant percentage of false positives. Positive results more likely indicate “ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.” [2]
However, none of this is new information to science. These facts were known at least before 2007 after a New York Times report entitled, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t,” (image, above) clearly showed how scientifically inaccurate PCR tests are, featuring many shocking statements from medical experts on the use of these tests, clearly laying out how they result in false positives and lead to dangerous exaggerations and false alarms. [3]
In their 2007 story the New York Times cited a prescient quote from Dr. Elizabeth Talbot, deputy state epidemiologist for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, who said:
“One Of The Most Troubling Aspects Of The Pseudo-Epidemic Is That All The Decisions Seemed So Sensible At The Time.”
Those who run our public institutions have allowed history to repeat itself. At the head of the line of incompetence and malfeasance is the UN itself. At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (photo, below) said:
“We Have A Simple Message For All Countries: Test, Test, Test.”
This insanity of testing anyone and everyone, even without symptoms has been an unmitigated global public health scandal and must be stopped. All officials in high places complicit in this crime must be prosecuted.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.