Christian Drosten, a German virologist and wunderkind, signed the (lab origin coverup) Lancet letter, and designed the PCR test for Covid that has been touted by the WHO and used around the world. His PCR test has been challenged by European scientists and physicians. His PhD is said by some to have been faked.
How, then, did he become a full professor at the University of Bonn and, at 35, head of the Institute of Virology at Charite Hospital? Drosten became the face of Covid in Germany in the same way Fauci became the face of the pandemic in the US. According to an April 2020 puff piece in Sciencemagazine,
Drosten’s podcast has given him real influence, says Marcel Fratzscher, head of DIW Berlin, an economic research institute. “At this point, if Drosten says it is too early [to open up], that carries as much weight as Merkel saying it.”
“But Drosten wants his research to save lives. Large cardboard boxes in his office hold supplies of two medicines waiting to be tried in the clinic. One is camostat mesylate, a pancreatitis drug approved in Japan that Drosten and others found can prevent both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells. The other drug is niclosamide, used to treat tapeworms and other parasites. In a paper posted on the preprint server bioRxiv this month, Drosten’s colleague Marcel Müller showed that SARS-CoV-2 interferes with the cellular recycling process called autophagy. It’s unclear how exactly that benefits the virus, but niclosamide counters the interference. Treatment with the compound reduced SARS-CoV-2’s growth in cell culture by 70%, the authors write. Drosten hopes to start to enroll patients soon in a trial to test a combination of the two drugs.”
This paragraph enables me to transition to a very important point that I have not seen anyone else write about. I am talking about the tremendous benefit conveyed by the pandemic to the drug research enterprise. Normally it costs many millions of dollars to test one drug–perhaps over a billion if it is a new chemical entitiy.
But, as long as you can pretend that there are no effective drugs to treat Covid, you can keep testing drugs on human beings. That is why the Recovery and Solidarity trials continue to enroll hapless subjects, instead of treating them with drugs that actually cure the disease.
Here is Drosten, with cartons of two old drugs he wants to test in humans, one of which was only 70% effective at killing virus in the lab. Why not use a drug like ivermectin that is practically 100% effective at killing virus? It would be both unethical and very expensive to test drugs outside the pandemic if it were admitted that a Covid treatment already existed.
But if you pretend there are no effective treatments, the treatment trials for Covid turn into charity affairs. Very little data are collected, so the investigators cannot be shown to have harmed the patients. But enough data are collected for a future regulatory review.
I wrote about this with respect to the Solidarity trial in my long article on the hydroxychloroquine false narrative. Countries donate tax dollars, and charitable institutions donate, and a variety of drugs can be tested. It doesn’t seem to matter that almost all fail to cure the patient. It helps keep the fear going. This testing is probably being done to gather human data for a possible future use of these drugs, perhaps for a completely different purpose.
On the other hand, there also may be a role for these trials as a delaying action… slow-rolling a response until vaccines or whatever are available.
So how do these useless drug trials help the pandemic purveyors?
They keep the public terrified over the lack of a cure
They delay the end of the pandemic
They test drugs for the pharmaceutical industry and its minions at taxpayer expense
The trials are conducted rapidly with a large number of centers enrolling patients, who think they are generating knowledge for the good of humanity
Probably there are enormous kickbacks involved
The wunderkind Drosten appears to be in the thick of the coverup. If a Covid cure is found, he would lose the opportunity to do the drug trials.
The Biden Administration has proposed what it calls a $2.3 trillion “infrastructure” legislation which it calls the “American Jobs Plan.” Far from addressing the huge deficit in America’s highway, bridges, railway, electric grid, water supply and such economically vital infrastructure that would address critical problems in the functioning of the economy, the Biden planners have cynically taken a politically popular word, “infrastructure,” and packed hundreds of billions of dollars into economically wasteful, destructive initiatives having more to do with the Green Agenda than rebuilding a healthy economy. If passed, it will have negative consequences for the world’s once-leading economy with serious geopolitical implications.
In March Biden signed another huge extra-budget bill, the $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan.” That one was allegedly to aim at dealing with the impact of COVID. The bill dealt in fact with almost everything but COVID. The act is a grab bag of partisan pet projects. Among other things the act provided $12 billion for foreign aid; $15 billion for health care for illegal immigrants; $112 billion for welfare benefits and a generous $350 billion for Democrat-run states. Less than 10% was directed at COVID relief measures. In politics how you frame or package a bill is more important than the true content. Critics claim these huge spending bills are aimed at buying a future Democratic voter base with government handouts.
‘Everything is Infrastructure’
No surprise then that now the Biden team has rushed another multi-trillion bill to Congress. The $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan is a bill where way less than half of the measures have to do with conventional infrastructure investment in roads, rails, electric grids, water supplies, ports or airports—all the areas essential to the efficient functioning of the economy. A total of $750 billion or only 32% of the total actually goes for infrastructure such as highway or bridge repairs. Yet even that total includes only $115 billion of real infrastructure for highways, bridges, and surface streets. But the $750 transportation infrastructure section proposes $174 billion for more government subsidies for Green Agenda electric vehicles in what might be called a “make Elon Musk richer” subsidy. The White House fact sheet says that this will help make the US more competitive with China’s electric cars. But the best selling E-car in China today is Musk’s Tesla. That $174 billion is far more than the total $115 billion earmarked for real highway, bridge and transportation infrastructure spending. Yet the White House promotes the bill by referring to the need to address America’s crumbling highways and bridges as though this was what the bill is focused on.
The Biden bill defines pretty much everything as “infrastructure.” His American Jobs Plan calls among other items for spending on what it terms “care infrastructure.” They define this as $25 billion to upgrade child care facilities and $400 billion expenditure on care for the elderly and disabled, spending which might be justifiable, but not as “infrastructure.”
Buried in the text of the bill’s $100 billion to go to electric grid modernization and another $27 billion for something called a “clean energy and sustainability accelerator,” is a proposal that would extend generous tax credits to promote solar and wind energy alternatives to reach “zero carbon” electricity by 2035, a ruinous idea. It has been estimated that to make US electricity 100% carbon free, it would require a staggering 25% to 50% of all land in the United States. Today’s coal, gas and nuclear grid requires 0.5 percent of land in the United States. Clearly Biden’s Green jobs plan is hiding a far more sinister agenda.
What the Administration also hides is the fact that it would be a huge boon to China which has a global near-monopoly on production of solar panels, and Denmark or Germany which make most windmill turbines today. Those do not create American jobs as Biden Climate Czar John Kerry once claimed. Ironically, the Biden Administration sees Germany as the model, the place where the Merkel green energy program has created the highest electric costs in all Europe.
Then the Biden bill proposes $10 billion to create something called a “Civilian Climate Corps,” something that deliberately sounds like Roosevelt’s Depression era Civilian Conservation Corps, but with a Green New Deal politically correct “woke” update. The White House says that it will “put a new, diverse generation of Americans to work conserving our public lands and waters, bolstering community resilience (?), and advancing environmental justice (whatever that means-w.e.) through a new Civilian Climate Corps.” No doubt in Biden-Harris America that has something to do with race and gender, but not with infrastructure.
Another $20 Billion should go “to Advance Racial Equity and Environmental Justice.” Apparently that means destroying existing highway infrastructure in cities where it is claimed to divide neighborhoods racially. Further an impressive $213 Billion will go to build or retrofit 2 Million Houses and Buildings. Then it adds another $40 billion for public housing, arguing this will “disproportionately benefit women, people of color, and people with disabilities.” For anyone familiar with America’s inner-city public housing ghettoes, this is hardly positive for the people who should live in the places.
In one of the most curious “infrastructure” proposals, Biden would spend $100 billion for New Public Schools and Making School Lunches “Greener.” This comes just after the COVID bill in March gave an unprecedented $128 billion for public schools. The American system gives control over education to local municipal governments and not the Federal government, leading some to suggest the agenda of the Biden crew is imposing a stealth Federal government takeover of public school education. What the Biden people mean by “green lunches” includes “reducing or eliminating the use of paper plates and other disposable materials.” Presumably that includes eliminating plastic knives and forks, leaving the children perhaps to eat with their fingers?
And, for good “infrastructure” measure, more billions will go to “Eliminate ‘Racial and Gender Inequities’ in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) research and development.” How that helps America’s crumbling basic infrastructure is not made clear.
All this $2.3 billion grab bag of mainly Green Agenda projects will be financed by the largest tax increases since the 1990’s as well as a wider Federal deficit.
The Real Infrastructure Deficit
The entire Green New Deal and UN Agenda 2030 is a fraudulent cover to deliberately deindustrialize not only the United States, but also Europe and the entire industrialized world. No economy in history outside of damages of war or depression has deliberately gone from a more energy efficient infrastructure to a lower one. Notably China, while pledging agreement, also says it will comply with Net Zero Carbon, but only ten years after the US and EU, by 2060. Right now they are adding new coal plants at a rapid pace.
The real infrastructure deficit in the US economy is in hundreds of thousands of miles of national Interstate highways. As well, a deteriorating electric grid is made more vulnerable by forced purchase of high-cost unreliable solar or wind energy.
In March the American Society of Civil Engineers released its analysis of US infrastructure, before the Biden $2.3 billion proposal. The report evaluates the state of bridges, roadways, public transit, ports, airports, inland waterways, water supplies. It does so every four years. They estimate that a total of at least $6 trillion is needed to repair or fix America’s deteriorated infrastructure. This is basic infrastructure, not Green Agenda. The report notes that infrastructure that brings clean water to major cities, as well as thousands of miles of wastewater pipelines, sewer systems built decades ago, are badly in need of renewal. The report adds that the drinking water infrastructure system, some 2.2 million miles of underground pipes, is ageing and badly in need of renewal. Local water utilities are replacing some 1% to 5% a year, far too little, due to lack of funding.
The ASCE report notes that of the 617,000 bridges across the United States, “42% are at least 50 years old, and 46,154, or 7.5% of the nation’s bridges, are considered structurally deficient, meaning they are in “poor” condition.” Alone the backlog of urgently needed bridge repair would require $125 billion. And they estimate that over 40% of the nation’s roads and highways are in poor or mediocre condition.
This is just a partial indication of the huge deficit in real economic infrastructure needed to maintain and improve the economic performance of the US economy. The fact that the Green Agenda of the pro-global warming Biden Administration is misusing popular calls for maintaining this basic necessary infrastructure in favor of inefficient and destructive Green and other schemes will mean that the economic foundation of the United States will weaken at an accelerated pace. Some influential circles such as BlackRock apparently want this. Biden’s two senior economic advisers are from BlackRock. Brian Deese, head of green or sustainable investment (ESG) at BlackRock, is director of the National Economic Council, and Adewale “Wally” Adeyemo, former chief of staff to BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink, is Deputy Treasury Secretary under former Fed head Janet Yellen. BlackRock, the world’s largest investment firm with more than $9 trillion under management, is a lead player in the Davos World Economic Forum Great Reset agenda and clearly, in the Biden “infrastructure” agenda.
F. William Engdahl is a strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University.
Bolivia’s Interior Minister Eduardo del Castillo confirmed that his country will ask the United States for the extradition of Rodrigo Mendez. He served as chief of staff to Arturo Murillo, who was interior minister in the coup-born regime led by Jeanine Añez (2019-2020).
He was arrested in Florida for requesting a bribe of US$582,000 to grant a contract for the purchase of tear gas ammunition for the coup-born regime.
The purchase from the Brazilian company Condor was for almost US$7 million. The acquisition was made through the U.S. company Bravo Tactical Solutions with an alleged overprice of US$2.3 million, which would have been used in bribes.
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that Mendez allegedly received a second bribe payment up to US$714,000 in cash.
The evidence gathered from text messages, e-mails, and bank records revealed that Mendez was requested to write a letter to the Brazilian manufacturer to insist that the Añez regime would only buy the products through Bryan Berkman’s company.
Del Castillo explained that the extradition would be requested through Interpol channels and diplomatic notes to the U.S. State Department.
“We are sending the corresponding notes so that these people come to account to the Bolivian people,” he said, adding that Mendez and Murillo “took advantage of the opportunity to sow drug trafficking and corruption in our country.”
Four things we know of probably helped drive up the number of hospitalizations coded as due to Covid-19.
One was the payment of considerably more funds by Medicare for a hospitalization coded with a Covid DRG than for a comparable illness.
Two was an extra federal payment to hospitals that met a certain threshold of Covid cases during a specified time period, as discussed by Scott Jensen, MD and recent member of the Minnesota legislature, who is now running for governor.
Three was a required Covid test for every admitted patient, which has some false positives and presumably also identifies asymptomatic cases.
Four was extra emergency payments to states that could show they had a preponderance of Covid patients.
Physicians at Stanford’s quaternary (super specialized and able to care for the very sickest patients) pediatric center examined 117 Covid-coded pediatric hospitalizations that occurred during a 9 month period from May 10, 2020 to February 10, 2021. They determined that 45% of these children were not admitted because of Covid. Their paper is short and straightforward. Worth a quick look.
A sure sign of a country’s collapse is the open corruption of its public and private institutions. When corruption no longer has to be hidden but can be openly flouted, the values and standards that comprised the country’s soul have eroded away.
Try to find an American institution that is not corrupt. Even when presented with the Covid threat the US public health system could not rise above the greed for profit. Effective cures, such as HCQ and Ivermectin were demonized and in many states prohibited. Most Covid deaths are the result of non-treatment.
Throughout the alleged “Covid Pandemic” regulatory agencies, health bureaucracies, medical associations, state governors, media, and Big Pharma have acted to prevent any alternative to a vaccine.
From day one the emphasis was on the profits from a vaccine. To get people to submit to an experimental and untested vaccine required the absence of cures. To keep the road open only for a vaccine even supplements such as NAC, which has shown effectiveness as both preventative and treatment of Covid, has been challenged by the FDA in its use as a supplement. In response, amazon.com, a major online marketer of dietary supplements removed NAC from its offerings.
The generation of fear was essential to stampeeding people to line up to be vaccinated. The fear was supplemented by threats of inability to travel, to attend sports events, to resume working at one’s job.
A Covid test, known as PCR, was intentionally run at high cycles known to result in a very high percentage of false positives. These false positives guaranteed a high infection rate that scared people silly. Economic incentives were used for hospitals to report all deaths as Covid deaths, thus greatly exaggerating Covid’s mortality.
As you might have noticed, last winter had no reporting of flu cases as flu was added to the Covid statistics.
A number of reports have been published that the Covid vaccine does not prevent some vaccinated people from coming down with Covid. Other reports say that vaccinated people become spreaders of Covid. There are also reports of a large number of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccine.
In order to suppress the facts and keep the Covid vaccine selling, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), which supported running the PCR test at high cycles in order to inflate the number of Covid cases, runs the PCR test at much lower cycles in the case of infected vaccinated people in order to minimize the number of vaccinated people who came down with Covid.
To further create an artificial picture of the vaccine’s effectiveness, asymptomatic and mild infections are excluded from the reporting of vaccinated people who catch Covid. Only vaccinated people who catch Covid who have to be hospitalized or die from Covid are counted among the people who caught Covid despite being vaccinated. However, unvaccinated people with only minor symptoms or false positives from a high cycle PCR test are added to the number of Covid cases.
This is obvious and blatant manipulation of statistics in order to scare people about Covid while reassuring them about the vaccine’s effectiveness. Overstating the number of cases among the unvaccinated while simultaneously understating the number of people who caught Covid despite being vaccinated is shameless and protects the contrived picture of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.
The falsification of statistics in order to produce massive public fear and the prevention of treatment with known safe and effective cures in order to maximize death rates produced billions of dollars in profits for Big Pharma and associated industries, with Moderna’s CEO topping the list of nine new billionaires made rich from the rollout of Covid vaccines. These billionaires rode to their riches on the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who died from an enforced lack of treatment — mandated deaths to protect vaccine profits.
Will anything be done about this extraordinary corruption of the American public health system?
While the UK government has been backing Israel’s intense bombing campaign in Gaza, Declassified can reveal that a third of cabinet ministers and the foreign minister responsible for the Middle East, have been courted by the Israeli government or pro-Israel lobby groups.
More than a third of the British cabinet, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has made overseas trips funded by the Israeli government or affiliated lobby groups, it can be revealed.
Of the 23 cabinet ministers, eight have been funded to visit Israel or Washington DC while members of parliament, to the tune of at least £14,000.
Johnson went on a five-day trip to Israel in November 2004, three years after he first entered parliament. It was jointly funded by the Israeli government and Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), a powerful Westminster lobby group which does not disclose its funders but has claimed 80% of Conservative MPs are members.
CFI says it “works to promote its twin aims of supporting Israel and promoting Conservatism in the UK”.
Johnson did not declare the trip in his parliamentary register of interests until four years later, in 2008, and did not disclose the cost of the trip, which may be a breach of parliamentary standards. Former chancellor George Osborne, who was also on the trip, registered it two weeks after returning.
The only public record of the visit is an article in the Spectator magazine Johnson authored soon after, in which he refers to his “affable minder from the Israeli foreign office”.
In 2012, CFI organised a “battle bus” to take Johnson on a tour of north London as part of his London mayoral election campaign.
As mayor, in 2015, Johnson visited Israel again, saying on the trip there is “something Churchillian about the country” due to its “feats of outrageous derring-do”. Two years later, now foreign secretary, Johnson referred to the “miracle of Israel” at a CFI event.
Then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, tastes spices during a visit at the Mahane Yehuda market on 10 November 2015, in Jerusalem, Israel. (Photo: Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images)
Five other ministers in the cabinet – Alok Sharma, Kwasi Kwarteng, Robert Jenrick, Oliver Dowden and Amanda Milling – took paid-for trips to Israel from 2011 to 2016. Kwarteng and Milling visited the year after they first entered parliament, while Dowden went before he became an MP.
A further two cabinet ministers, Michael Gove and Priti Patel, were funded to visit Washington DC to attend conferences put on by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier Israel lobby group in the US.
The UK government has been criticised for its backing of Israel’s bombing of schools, medical facilities, media organisations and residential towers in Gaza over the past 11 days.
At least 227 Palestinians in Gaza, including 121 civilians, have been killed since Israel’s bombardment began on 10 May, according to the health ministry in the territory. A ceasefire began early on Friday morning.
While the UK government repeatedly condemned the Palestinian group Hamas for firing rockets into Israel, it did not condemn Israel for launching hundreds of airstrikes on Gaza, an occupied territory.
At the height of the violence, Johnson said: “I am urging Israel and the Palestinians to step back from the brink and for both sides to show restraint. The UK is deeply concerned by the growing violence and civilian casualties and we want to see an urgent de-escalation of tensions.”
The UK government has so far refused to halt its arms exports to Israel and significant cooperation with the country’s military, which has deepened in recent years.
AIPAC
The home secretary, Priti Patel, was given £2,500 by the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) in 2013 to be a delegate at a “forum” organised by AIPAC.
The London-based HJS does not disclose its funders but has a staunch pro-Israel position and close links to Israel. At least two HJS staffers have moved directly from the group to working for the Israeli foreign ministry, while the group’s executive director, Alan Mendoza, was a founding director of the Friends of Israel Initiative.
Patel was on the HJS’s “political council” in 2013, leaving at some point in 2016, and also previously served as parliamentary officer of CFI. She was later forced to resign as a minister in David Cameron’s government after it emerged she held secret meetings with several Israeli politicians during a “family holiday” to Israel in August 2017.
The meetings, including one with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were arranged by Lord Polak, the honorary president of CFI.
The head of the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove, is also closely associated with CFI and has spoken at its annual business lunch, describing Israel as a “light to the world” and “an inspiration”.
In 2017, Gove received over £3,000 from AIPAC to speak at its conference in Washington DC. The Henry Jackson Society also contributed to this trip. The previous year, the HJS had paid another £2,764 for Gove to fly to New York to pick up an award from pro-Israel newspaper, The Algemeiner Journal.
UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab is also closely associated with the HJS, having also sat on the group’s “political council” while minister for justice. It is not known what membership of this council involves or if Raab is still a member.
‘Fact-finding delegation’
In 2011, the year after he entered parliament, Kwasi Kwarteng, now minister for business, was funded by the Israeli foreign ministry to visit Israel, in a trip costing £1,242.
The other visits by now serving cabinet ministers were funded by CFI, and were mostly described as being part of a “fact-finding political delegation to Israel and the West Bank”. They lasted up to six days and cost between £1,500 and £2,000.
It is not known if the MPs were given Israeli “handlers” during their visits like Johnson, but the Israeli government is known to be involved in programming such trips.
The current minister for the COP26 climate negotiations, Alok Sharma, made a CFI-sponsored trip to Israel in 2013, while Oliver Dowden, now culture minister, went the following year.
In 2016, Robert Jenrick, now minister for housing and local government, visited alongside Amanda Milling, the current minister without portfolio, who had entered parliament the previous year.
According to CFI: “The centrepoint of the [2016 CFI] visit was a high-profile meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the announcement of the UK Government’s plans to stop local councils boycotting Israel.”
This announcement was made by Matt Hancock, then head of the Cabinet Office whose trip to Israel coincided with the CFI delegation. Hancock is now health secretary.
The CFI group also met then British ambassador to Israel, David Quarrey, at his residence in Tel Aviv. Quarrey is now Johnson’s international affairs adviser.
Robert Jenrick later called Israel “one of the great achievements in human history” at a CFI event. He told parliament last week that the UK government supports the idea that “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism”, a controversial position that could be regarded as itself anti-Semitic as it conflates all Jewish people with the state of Israel.
Meanwhile, the current Attorney General, Michael Ellis, who is not a minister but attends cabinet, went on a CFI-funded trip to Israel in 2014. Current foreign minister James Cleverly visited the following year, just three months after first entering parliament.
On his 2015 trip, Cleverly said: “Israel is an amazing country, there’s no doubt about that.” Now minister for the Middle East, Cleverly on Wednesday provided strong support for the Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza.
He told parliament: “The UK unequivocally condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and other locations within Israel,” adding: “We strongly condemn these acts of terrorism by Hamas and other terrorist groups who must permanently end their incitement and rocket fire against Israel. There is no justification for the targeting of civilians.”
Cleverly also told parliament that his government opposes an International Criminal Court enquiry into Israeli war crimes in the occupied territories and continues to reject calls to halt arms exports to Israel and recognise a Palestinian state.
Aside from trips to Israel paid for by lobby groups, other members of Johnson’s cabinet have been funded by pro-Israel individuals. Defence secretary Ben Wallace has received a donation to his constituency party from Lord Steinberg, the founder and president of the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel group until his death in 2009.
Meanwhile, Liz Truss, minister for international trade, in 2015 received a donation from David Meller, a British businessman who was a director of CFI from 2012 to 2014. Meller has also donated to Michael Gove. DM
Matt Kennard is head of Investigations at Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world.
In 2016, former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Louis Freeh gave $100,000 to a private trust for Joe Biden’s grandchildren and met with the then-US vice president in a bid to pursue “some very good and profitable matters” with him, the New York Post reports, referring to newly surfaced emails.
In October 2020, the newspaper published an article containing several emails allegedly retrieved from Hunter Biden’s laptop claiming that he had arranged meetings with foreign officials for his father when the latter served in the Obama administration.
The “donation” mentioned in the emails reported by the NY Post on Thursday, was sent to a trust for the children of Hallie Biden, the widow of Joe’s late son Beau, who later became Hunter’s lover.
The Daily Mail on Thursday referred to an email marked “confidential and privileged”, in which Freeh wrote to Hunter that he “would be delighted to do future work with” Biden’s son.
“I also spoke to Dad [Joe Biden] a few weeks ago and would like to explore with him some future work options. I believe that working together on these (and other legal) matters would be of value, fun, and rewarding”, the July 2016 email reportedly read.
The ex-FBI boss floated the idea again a month later, ostensibly saying he was working for then-Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was at the time embroiled in a scandal over one of the world’s biggest financial frauds, and was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2020.
“I would like to talk with you and Dad about working together next year. No doubt both he and you have many options and probably some which are more attractive than my small shop”, Freeh purportedly wrote in August 2016, in an apparent nod to his consultancy firm.
The Daily Mail reported that the correspondence raises the question about whether Joe Biden was “discussing future private business deals while still in office” with Freeh, who was allegedly collaborating with “three men who were later found to be corrupt foreign criminals”. Apart from Razak, they include French-Israeli billionaire Beny Steinmetz and Romanian real estate tycoon Gabriel Popoviciu.
When publishing Hunter Biden’s alleged emails in mid-October 2020, the New York Post claimed that in one of the documents, Vadym Pozharskyi, then a top official at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, thanked the president’s son for organising a meeting with his father, while in a second email, Pozharskyi asked Hunter how he could use his influence to support Burisma.
Former US President Donald Trump has repeatedly slammed the media for not covering the alleged corrupt dealings of Hunter Biden in Ukraine, since the story about possible misconduct on the latter’s part was mainly ignored by the mainstream media, apart from Fox News, and temporarily blocked from sharing on Twitter.
This is only a partial picture of the long reach of Bill Gates into our scientific institutions. On Monday I focused on three GF-funded universities which have informed Sage on doomsday Covid-19 modelling: Imperial College London (ICL), Warwick University and the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine (LSHTM). There are many more academic universities and centres which have taken the GF dollar, including those involved in the research and manufacture of vaccines, who between them set parameters of approved research and gave their research leads significant clout.
They are thus able ‘to ignore or cherry pick science and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates’, as the executive editor of the BMJ Kamran Abbasi explained it recently. This toxic combination of scientific bias by commission and omission, exacerbated by GF funding, has led to the shutting down of science debate, to active censorship and even to dissemination of scientific untruths, as has been reported elsewhere in TCW pages.
Many scientists and academics have been worryingly silent about the government’s anti-science response to Covid-19. The few who have spoken out have been scorned and smeared by Sage and their nodding dogs, the MSM. Can this culture of silence can be traced back to the extensive GF funding of British universities?
Let’s take Britain’s pre-eminent universities, Oxford and Cambridge, first.
The GF’s funding of Oxford University goes back 21 years, to a first $4.7million grant for malaria and global health research in 2000. Its giving has risen exponentially since then. In 2019, the GF gave Oxford $40million, including $9.6million for vaccine development. In 2020 it gave $10.8million, including $310,970 to improve understanding of Covid-19. To date this year, Oxford has received $152,553 from the GF.
Oxford University is the site of the Covid-19 Recovery trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY), promoted as the world’s largest randomised clinical trial. The trial’s chief investigator, Professor Peter Horby, is a key member of Sage and Nervtag.
The Recovery trial is funded by the Wellcome Trust, the GF, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the ‘Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator’, the latter being a collaboration between the GF, Wellcome Trust and MasterCard. In March 2020, Oxford University was one of three institutions to share $20million from the GF via its Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.
The deputy investigator of the Recovery trial, Professor Martin Landray, has further links to the GF. He is a Lead at the UK Biobank, which is partnered with the Wellcome Trust and also a Lead of the NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre at Oxford University.
The NIHR Centre is funded as well by the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, as noted above itself a collaboration between the GF, Wellcome Trust and MasterCard.
In March 2020, the Wellcome Trust gave £7.5million via the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator to see if hydroxychloroquineand chloroquine ‘can prevent the spread of Covid-19’ (not treat it, strangely). During the same year the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator also gave $9.5million to the University of Washington to study the effects of hydroxychloroquine on Covid-19.
Professor Horby has sold the Recovery Trial as a success story, but other scientists have disputed this. Last June, hard on the heels of the retraction by the Lancet of its now-notorious paper purporting to show that hydroxychloroquine not only did not help Covid-19 patients, but actually made them worse, came news of the termination of the hydroxychloroquine ‘arm’ of the UK’s Recovery clinical trials.
But the trial design had already been savaged within days of launch; it was never likely to help very sick late-stage Covid-19 patients and what Professor Landray found himself struggling to explain in an interview were ‘the very heavy doses of the drug that were given – 2400 mg in the first 24 hours, a ‘dose fit for a gorilla’ as one critic had it.
Needless to say Professors Horby and Landray glossed over the inadequacies of this particular trial and quickly dismissed the use of hydroxychloroquine, vowing to concentrate on ‘more promising drugs’. And the possibility of a cheap and easy early treatment for Covid-19, from re-purposed generic drugs, especially hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalisation, was trashed.
Probing alleged conflicts of interest, France Soir noted the co-authorship of Professor Horby on papers reporting trials of Gilead’s remdesivir (there was no benefit in mortality), an agreement between his department and AstraZeneca for development of Oxford’s vaccine candidate, and generous funding from the GF. Curiously, there is a connection too between Professor Landray’s interests in Big Data and Gilead, a pharmaceutical company which was in merger talks with AstraZeneca last year. Vaccines are profitable, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are not. No wonder the GF invests so heavily in the organisations which research, fund and manufacture vaccines, rather than pursuing investment in better constructed early treatment trials.
A further cluster of Sage members, Professors Dame Angela McLean, Michael Parker, Gideon Henderson, Charlotte Deane and Dr Laura Merson, all work at Oxford University.
Cambridge University’s GF’s funding started with an initial grant of $8.1million for agricultural development in 2012. The GF awarded a grant of $998,891 in 2019 to fund research into pneumonia, and $420,000 in 2020 for global education.
More significantly, Cambridge is the site of the Cambridge Science Park, another GF-funded venture. In May 2020, GF and Google Ventures gave $45million to Cerevance, a pharmaceutical company based at Cambridge Science Park.
The Wellcome Trust is also involved in scientific research at Cambridge. Together with the Medical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, it awarded the Cambridge-based Institute of Metabolic Science £24million in 2013. Professor Julia Gog of Sage is employed at Cambridge University, as are Nervtag member Professor Ravindra Gupta and Independent Sage member Dr Tolullah Oni.
Professor Daniela DeAngelis and Dr Joshua Blake, members of SP-I-M, also work at Cambridge University.
The GF has also funded University College London (UCL), giving its first $25.2million in 2006 for HIV research. UCL was granted a total of $10.8million in 2019 and $484,000 in 2020, including $144,000 to research vaccines last March. The GF has committed funding from 2020-2023 to study postpartum haemorrhage. UCL also collaborates with the GF and the Wellcome Trust on a research project called Global Health.
Sage members Professors Dame Anne Johnson, Andrew Hayward and Alan Penn work at UCL.
Professor Susan Michie is the Director of the Centre for Behaviour Change at UCL and sits on both Sage and Independent Sage. Her fellow Independent Sage members Professors Anthony Costello, Christina Pagel, Deenan Pillay, Ann Phoenix and Robert West all work at UCL in some capacity.
Other less prominent academic institutions, such as the University of Southampton, are also beneficiaries of the GF’s vast financing. In 2009, Southampton received $100,000 for scientific research from the GF, and was also given specific grants of $335,800 in 2014, $3.6million in 2015 and $476,214 in 2020 for vaccine research. Sage member, Professor Guy Poppy, is employed at this university, as is Professor Lucy Yardley, a member of both Sage and SP-I-MO.
The UWE Bristol also has connections with the GF, the latter funding its climate change project called Robial. Peter Case, a UWE Bristol Law Professor, wrote a report on malaria for the GF. Sage member, Professor Jonathan Benger, is employed at the UWE Bristol.
It seems that no corner of British industry lies untouched by the long reach of the GF. As my research shows, it certainly seems to be the largest funder of British science, giving Gates influence and control exceeding all others, with an ownership of scientists and scientific research as a critical dimension of his global control agenda.
The level of dominance which Gates holds over British science companies, institutions and universities is more than concerning.
Could the combined anti-science and harmful responses to Covid-19 by members of Sage, Independent Sage and Nervtag have anything to do with their multitude of connections to the GF? This is certainly jackpot time for these GF-funded scientists and academics, some of whom are having their moment in the sun pontificating on television to the supine masses. Fame is an addictive drug.
Science and scientists that question the new groupthink or fall outside the parameters of the GF approved research have little chance. Neither do we while Bill Gates remains omnipotent.
We have written about this topic of no COVID-19 vaccination for children several times, raising our strong objections against vaccinating America’s children with the current COVID-19 vaccines, and our work was previously published in the American Institute of Economic Research (references 1, 2). Our core thesis for this op-ed offering encompasses a resounding “NO” against vaccination of children for COVID-19. There is zero science to support this, and there is potential serious harm. It is as simple as that. The benefits do not outweigh the harms, and the CDC and Dr. Fauci, and all who are pushing vaccinating our children with this set of COVID-19 vaccines are being very reckless, unscientific, specious, and dangerous with regard to our children. We call on them to reverse course. We argue that it is very dangerous and reckless to push to vaccinate low-risk children with untested vaccines for safety that could leave children with decades of severe disability if something goes wrong.
We make our argument now and we make it based on ‘No liability incurred by the CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers translates into no trust by parents’. Parents want to trust what is being done in this regard but how could they at this time when there is no basis for the vaccine? We ask the CDC in general, NIH, FDA, Dr. Fauci, the CDC’s new Director Walensky, and vaccine developers, to show us the evidence, show us and the public the data they are looking at, the science they are looking at, to warrant vaccinating our children. We can see none, we found none. If such exists, we certainly want to see it, if they would like to share it. These so-called ‘medical experts’ make statements and take positions often with no evidence or science to support what they are saying. In this case, we say no more. We want to see the evidence before we vaccinate our children.
Mask Mandate for Children
Firstly, let me/us be as clear as we can. All face masks must be removed from all children immediately unless you are a high-risk child and this is needed. Other than that, all other children, in the US, in Canada, Britain, France etc., all, must immediately rip up the masks and go on with life freely. Throw them away, they are not needed for our children. Nor is social distancing and definitely not in school. It is ridiculous. The CDC and the television medical experts, these talking head senseless and highly illogical people in these Task Forces like Fauci and Birx, have become (and became) contemptible with the drivel they spewed at the public 24/7 about these masks that are ineffective (they do not work and never worked, they just cannot as used) and very harmful. These experts in the CDC, NIH, FDA etc. costed jobs, businesses, and even lives with their corrupted pandemic response—denying early treatment when it existed. Especially the lives of our African-American and minority young people and children who could have least afforded the specious, unscientific, and unsound lockdown edicts.
Many good people and children lost their lives in desperation due to the crushing harms and devastation from the lockdowns and school closures that continue even today due to the CDC and the AFT teachers’ union collusion. Our statements on masks pertain to adults too but our focus here is on our children today, and urgently. These CDC, NIH, and similar agency and medical experts and advisors are all clueless, disgraceful, hysterical, illogical, irrational, specious, and patently absurd. Pure nonsense has been showcased with these masks mandates that they know do not work. After 20 minutes, they are garbage with the moisture they accrue. These CDC and NIH etc. experts reveal a depth of academic sloppiness and cognitive dissonance to any real science or anything that does not line up with their twisted unsound politicized narratives.
We always knew this. They the CDC, have never followed the science on masks as the science says it is junk and useless but do not tell “CDC 365” this (as described below). The surgical and cloth masks are and were all junk. We knew the science, reported it repeatedly, and spoke to it. How insane are these CDC experts? How embarrassing that they are the marque agency, and I am hoping the CDC can return to its former days of glory for at present, it is a non-scientific, pseudoscientific clubhouse for inept political representatives. The CDC does not do science, it does politics. The CDC is like the furniture store where with payment options, you do not pay for one year; you may think you are buying furniture, but they are really selling you ‘money’. You may think you are reading a scientific report from CDC when in fact, it is a political report.
Questions for Our Leaders
We open this op-ed with seven urgent questions for Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky (CDC’s Director), the NIH’s Dr. Collins, and the FDA, as well as the vaccine developers:
1) Would Dr. Fauci and Dr. Walensky as well as Dr. Collins of the NIH sign paperwork placing liability on themselves (their agencies) should any child be harmed or die from these vaccines?
2) Since the risk of Covid-19 infection is less than 1% and the Pfizer vaccine reduces the risk of infection by only 0.7% (absolute risk reduction), why are we vaccinating children with a non-FDA approved vaccine that is currently on EUA when their survival rate from Covid-19 is 99.997% according to the CDC? Near zero risk of severe illness or death. So, what is the benefit?
3) We have not seen any clinical trial data for children 12-15? Can we see it, can the public see it? What is the Absolute Risk Reduction measure, NOT the relative risk reduction?
4). How can the vaccine recipients (children) legally provide Informed Consent? Informed consent is not just ‘hey you, roll up your sleeves’…
5.) How do you plan to inform vaccine recipients about the Antibody-Dependent Enhancement risk (ADE) and similar risks, for if not properly informed of these “non-theoretical and ‘real’ compelling” risks, it violates medical ethics standards?
6.) Since studies show that those who have recovered from Covid-19 are at a greater risk of a severe vaccine reaction if they took the vaccine, do you plan to conduct antibody testing first of our children, to see if they have already been infected with Covid-19?
7). Are you aware that the vaccines cannot prevent infection or stop the spread according to Pfizer’s clinical trial data, and Topol/Doshi (New York Times )… it is and was only set up for mild COVID… nothing else… no transmission, no infection, no severe illness, no hospitalization, no death… so if children can get immunity harmlessly and naturally, and are at such low risk of spreading it or getting ill or dying, what is the benefit? It cannot be to drive herd immunity numbers for if you consider cross protection from common cold coronavirus and immunity from prior COVID infection that is cleared, then you do not need children for this… so why place our children at such unnecessary risk?
If our children are to take a vaccine that is not needed based on their risk (a child’s) of becoming infected and spreading the infection or becoming severely ill (and this is clear, stable global science), and a vaccine with questionable efficacy and very real potential harms based on emerging CDC VAERS adverse reporting database reports and anecdotal reports, then the CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers must take on the risk and consequent liability if our children are harmed.
Must be Held Accountable
We are vehement, that if any child dies or is harmed by these vaccines, then the CDC, NIH, FDA, Dr. Fauci, etc. must be held accountable. The CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers must be willing to immediately take on the risk if they stand by these vaccines for this is the safety of our children we are talking about. They must be willing to be accountable and put skin in the game. This is a very different situation than that for adults. No liability by the CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers equals no trust from parents and the public when it comes to our children. As a risk management question, we see no benefit from this vaccine and only potential downsides.
We consider vaccinating children for COVID-19 as dangerous and reckless, as reckless as the recent administering of this set of vaccines that lacks proper safety data, in pregnant women as per CDC’s guidance. We have read the enabling study and it raises many questions particularly the key one being the optimal time duration of study conduct was not done. How do you assess harms for a drug or medical device or vaccine when you are running studies for roughly 4 months? How? It is not possible. Safety signals (especially rare) cannot emerge during this time nor the optimal sample size for study (or event numbers). Where is the correct comparative group to assess the impact of vaccination on pregnant, vaccinated, positive women? Moreover, the initial decision for EUA for the vaccines was based on very small event numbers e.g. one key study had 170 events (162 placeboes and 8 in the intervention arm). This is incredible that such small event numbers enabled EUA for vaccinating hundreds of millions/billions of persons.
Many Questions Raised, With Little Answers
The vaccine trials have raised many methodological questions and we are concerned given the reports of over 3,000participants’ data being omitted in one study as they were ‘suspected’ but not ‘confirmed’ positive. We find this incredible especially how there is no full accounting by the vaccine developers of why this was done, and when we back calculate and do our own crude modeling, we find the efficacy declines from the reported 95% to 19-20%.
But here is the core issue as we look at the risk for children and this obsession by Fauci and Walensky to vaccinate our children:
i) children do not acquire it readily e.g. studies show less ACE 2 receptors in nasal epithelia
ii) children do not readily spread infection to other children
iii) children do not spread it readily to adults, it is the other way around
iv) children do not readily take it home; arises mainly from home clusters and the adults there
v) children do not become severely ill
vi) children do not die from it
vii) MISC is very rare, very treatable, and almost all leave the hospital… could it be that masking and locking kids down have driven MISC? how come nations with no lockdowns do not report MISC? or strong children masking?
So, given all of this, what is the benefit of vaccinating kids? It cannot be that kids are needed to drive herd immunity threshold for it can only be that, if you disregard cross protection that exists from prior common cold coronavirus, and also that there is existing immunity from persons who had COVID infection and cleared it. So, once you include those portions in the math, there is no need for children to achieve herd immunity, that’s a bogus reason, Dr. Fauci.
Children & the Risk of Spreading Infection
Let us for a moment, look at the issue of masking of our children and when outdoors. This will help demonstrate the ludicrousness and harmfulness of the CDC and what it is advocating for in vaccinating our children. The CDC’s guidance raises serious questions if harms emerge and comports itself to ridicule as much as wearing mask outdoors if vaccinated. As we view the CDC guidance from an eagle-eye perspective, we come to a conclusion that the CDC is not talking science anymore. It is purely nonsensical and confusing. For example, regarding the risk of outdoor transmission, the CDC knows of the Chinese study that showed only one of 7,324 infection events following careful contact tracing was linked to outdoor transmission. They, the CDC, know that the Irish analysis showed that only one in 1,000 infections out of 232,000 infections were linked to outdoor transmission. They know that outdoors has ample ventilation and thus spread is virtually non-existent (CDC originally reported that less than 10% of infection occurs outdoors and one is near 20 times more likely to be infected indoors than outdoors; however CDC’s 10% figure was inaccurate and proper research shows this to be 0.1% and CDC has now backtracked due to their startling error on outdoor transmission).
There remains an absence of evidence supporting the notion that children even spread the COVID-19 virus in any meaningful way, but there is direct evidence showing that they simply do not spread this infection and disease! This has been shown in school settings and as published in other papers. Children typically, if infected, have asymptomatic illnesses. It is well-noted that asymptomatic cases are not the drivers of the pandemic; something particularly important in relation to children as they are generally asymptomatic. A study published inthe journal Nature found no instances of asymptomatic spread from positive asymptomatic cases among all 1,174 close contacts of the cases, based on a base sample of 10 million persons. The World Health Organization (WHO) also made this claim that asymptomatic spread/transmission is rare. This issue of asymptomatic spread is the key issue being used to force vaccination in children. The science, however, remains contrary to this proposed policy mandate.
Supporting Evidence
In terms of masking children, which we are vehemently against (in school or out of school), Ludvigsson evidenced the low risk in children by publishing this seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine out of Sweden on COVID-19 among children one to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the nearly 2 million children that were followed in school in Sweden, it was reported that with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from COVID and a few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization.
Similarly, a high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of the COVID-19 virus via a cluster of COVID-19. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions (to any child or teacher). These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year. It is not ‘new’ evidence as the CDC seems to allude to. We have science on deck for near 14 months now and the CDC is clearly out of step with the science. Each turn we make. Why?
They, the CDC, also know of a high-quality review study byMadewell published in JAMAthatsought toestimate the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in households and determine factors that modify this parameter. The study was a meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77 758 participants. Secondary attack rates represented the spread to additional persons and researchers found a 25-fold increased risk within households between symptomatic positive infected index persons versus asymptomatic infected index persons. “Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)”. This study showed just how rare asymptomatic spread was within a confined household environment.
The CDC also knows of a high-quality randomized controlled trial Danish Study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine sought to assess whether recommending surgical mask utilization outside of the home would help reduce the wearer’s risks of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. The sample included a total of 3,030 participants who were assigned randomly to wear masks, and 2,994 who were told to not wear masks (i.e. the control arm). The authors concluded that there was no statistically or clinically significant impact of mask-use in regard to the rate of infection with SARS CoV-2.
As a result of the nonsense guidance by the CDC, Dr. Leana Wen (emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University; former Baltimore City Health Commissioner) has just about had it with the nonsensical capricious CDC guidelines and is reportedly shocked’ by new CDC Mask Guidance and rightly so. “They went from this overly cautious, nonsensical approach to another nonsensical approach — but one that is dangerous, one that throws caution out the window”. We agree, what the CDC is putting out is utter nonsense and actually dangerous. Dr. Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins) has also weighed in stating that this is the “most political CDC in history”, where guidance is “based on discretion not science”. We argue, CDC guidance is based on whimsy and is as far removed from science as possible.
Even the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is now saying to take off the mask when outside. The WSJknows that the gig is up with the ineffective masks but also that it is insane to consider masking outdoors when it is properly ventilated and the risk of spread is near zero, if at all. It is insane, illogical, irrational, and pure nonsense that the CDC and Dr. Fauci are advising children and teenagers to wear masks at summer camp, but not if they are vaccinated. It defies logic what is coming out of the CDC at present as to scientific guidance.
Disastrous Public Policy
It is incredible that a marque public health agency like the CDC could be making such disastrous public policy statements and guidance when they are constantly flat wrong and constantly having to reverse them or adjust them. What is going on at the CDC? We want the CDC to succeed and shine and be the ‘go to’ public health agency. But how could they, the CDC, provide guidance that masks are needed outdoors even ‘if vaccinated’. The totality of their argument remains meritless and absurd to date. It is nonsensical. We have argued that masks as currently used, the blue surgical and white cloth masks (or any cloth masks) are ineffective and essentially worthless. It is actually harmful and particularly for our children. We have raised this issue many times as to no benefit and possible harms of masking and it is catastrophic to our children, emotionally, socially, and health-wise. These masks do nothing and it is beyond being ‘neutral’, they are ineffective. It did nothing. Mask mandates have all failed. And now we refocus on the issue of vaccinating our children for COVID.
In this regard, the CDC knows (at least we would hope they do) that if fully vaccinated, if these vaccines do what they were purported to do by conferring sterilizing immunity (which we argue the vaccines fail to do), with the high titers of neutralizing antibodies, then you are effectively immune. You can toss your masks and you are liberated after your second shot. But do these vaccines really work as effectively as reported? Does the CDC know something that the public does not know, and hence the insistence on mask-wearing and distancing away from others, even if vaccinated? Ours is not merely a curiosity, but a legitimate question that remains without a scientific answer from the CDC. We are in full support of vaccines once developed properly with the proper safety testing.
We also find the current mechanisms being employed by the media and some people in shaming others for not being vaccinated is deplorable, while they take selfies and parade on the internet social media and denounce others. Why would you shame someone who is not vaccinated when you are fully vaccinated, if you are immune? If you are immune and, again, if you think you are, then why does it matter if someone else has not taken the vaccine, for they could be COVID recovered and have decided that they do not need the vaccine as they have robust and durable natural exposure immunity? They have this right to make a personal ‘informed’ decision. You are immune, so why be concerned with someone else’s vaccine status? Why infringe on others’ rights and freedoms and use public shaming as a venue to exploit your compliance.
Risk of Death?
But, what does the epidemiological data show as to the risk of death for children? Are children at such elevated risk to warrant vaccinating? Well, the most updated data by the American Academy of Pediatrics showed that “Children were 0.00%-0.19% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 10 [US] states reported zero child deaths. In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death.” This is the data.
Based on reporting of CDC data, 266 children aged 0 to 17 years in the US have died of COVID-19 and we mourn each death and we cannot understand the pain for the grieving parents and family. But let us put this in perspective to yearly seasonal influenza. During the 2018-2019 influenza season, 477 children 0 to 17 died of the regular flu, and we did not mask the nation, did not close schools, and did not seek to mass vaccinate children, and did not push them to cower under their beds in fright. This is all so illogical and insane what they have done in terms of COVID-19! In 2019, 2,545 children died in traffic accidents, 776 died due to drowning often in their backyard pools by accident, and 2,156 died due to homicide. As a result, did we stop sending them to school? Did we pave over our swimming pools or ban the driving of cars? No, we have as a society accepted this level of risk and we have learned to live with it. Life goes on. We get up, dress, go to work or school, and we pray for each other daily that we get through the day and live to see another day and we make it home.
Esteemed Dr. Marty Makary out of Johns Hopkins weighed in with his expertise and appeared to suggest that children 12 to 15 years old should be vaccinated. We were surprised and disagree fully with Makary as the risk to these children which he also admitted, was essentially zero. Exceedingly rare. Then why would he advocate for vaccinations? This is confusing as we find no clear evidence, in fact none, that children are at any appreciable risk. He even stated that the ‘rare’ MISC inflammatory condition that is reported, typically ends with the children fully recovering. This is completely treatable also. Again, why would he recommend the vaccine when the risk is so low for severe outcomes and the children can develop natural robust immunity? The immunity conferred by this narrow ‘spike-specific’ immunity cannot provide the broad-based, robust, durable, comprehensive immunity that natural exposure immunity can.
This is basic immunology and the risk-management decisions for parents in our view suggests ‘no’ vaccines when there is no benefit and no potential for tremendous harms. There are adverse events and deaths being reported in the CDC’s own VAERS database due to the COVID-19 vaccines that the media medical cartel is not reporting. We find it is reckless and dangerous for CDC and Fauci and NIH to be advocating for these vaccines in children when they know there are no safety studies to rule out harms and what is planned cannot rule out harms.
At the same time, and we do applaud his bravery, Makary re-iterated that CDC has been ‘consistently late or wrong’ since the pandemic began and on most everything, and the latest CDC guidance on masks in summer camps and school reveals just how out of touch the CDC is with the science. We agree fully with Makary on this and advocate for a renaming of the CDC to ‘CDC 365’ given they are routinely at least nine months to one year behind the science! He claimed that we needed the updated guidance by Fauci 14 months ago. Overall, Makary says para CDC school guidelines are scientifically flawed and being used by Biden to stall reopening and appease teacher’s unions. We agree fully with this too! There is no sound, scientific, no good reason to keep schools closed, no sound reason to mask children in schools, and no sound scientific reason, none, no justification for children to wear masks indoors in school or in summer camps. It is illogical, irrational, hysterical, unscientific and actually absurd guidance by the CDC 365. As usual! What CDC and Dr. Fauci are advocating for in terms of children being vaccinated is dangerous and reckless in our opinion and has no basis, none!
Benefits Do Not Outweight Risks
We again argue that it is very dangerous and reckless to push to vaccinate low-risk children with untested vaccines for safety that could leave children with decades of severe disability if something goes wrong. We are for vaccines but they must be properly developed, and the emerging adverse effects and the lack of safety data raises serious concerns for these vaccines in children. The benefit just does not outweigh the risks and to claim that we need kids taking the jab to get to population-level herd immunity is absurd because you are not, Dr. Fauci and CDC and NIH, factoring in the natural immunity that already exists in the population, and you are not factoring in cross-protection from prior common cold coronaviruses etc. It is also very dangerous to mask our children. There is no basis for this, none! It defies basic common sense.
Thus, we cannot understand, once again, why public health agencies such as the CDC and Dr. Fauci, along with the nonsensical bureaucrats and technocrats would make such senseless statements and provide no basis for them, in that children require vaccination for prevention of COVID-19 when he and they know they are at little, vanishingly small risk! We have serious concerns about the safety of these vaccines for all persons (including questionable efficacy as it has been reported). Let us not pretend. Why? We applaud the tremendous feat under the Trump administration of seeking to bring vaccines in such a short period by cutting the regulatory red tape and circumventing and squeezing out the ‘dead’ time across the different phases of vaccine development. However, this does not obviate us from raising questions when there are troubling signs as to safety signals (rare or otherwise).
We are now seeing reports of the mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines promoting blood clotting, blood disorders, variousbleeding disorders, and that the spike protein on its own is potentially pathogenic. Besides the real documented adverse effects, there are also theoretical risks such as to the brain from lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that will not manifest for years. Such that we may be mistakenly injecting people with a pathogenic protein. The AAPS has also stated that “blood Clotting Needs to Be Watched with All COVID Vaccines”.
No Liability Means No Trust
With this, the phrase we want the public to adopt is ‘no liability means no trust’ and by this, we mean that we want the FDA and Dr. Fauci, and the vaccine developers to remove the liability waiver from the vaccines for children. We waiver is one thing for adults but not for children given the low risk for infection and spread. The benefit does not outweigh the risk and if our children are being asked to take this untested vaccine, then the vaccine developers must have risk in the game. They must be willing to stand up for the vaccine and as such, be willing to attest to its safety by removing the liability waiver. This will give parents the confidence they need for as it stands, they have none. No liability means no trust in the vaccine. It is that simple. If the vaccine developers and all linked to the vaccine have no liability, then we can have no trust in it. Furthermore, the criteria for emergency use authorization (EUA) in children is not met and thus no EUA is warranted for children.
Building on this, Dr. Patrick Whelan (UCLA pediatrician) (Regulations.gov) shares our grave concerns especially regarding the nascent evidence about the pathogenicity of the spike protein the vaccine is injecting. In December 2020, Whelan warned the FDA that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in ways NOT assessed in safety trials. He stated, “I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (including the mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech) have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that is not currently being assessed in safety trials of these drugs”. Yes, we are concerned the vaccine developers have been less than forthcoming, and the government and their medical experts are being evasive with their statements. And we are now going to play with the safety and lives of our children? We say NO. No liability equals no trust.
An Uninformed Public
The public is not properly informed about the risks and the safety data is not there. It is just not there and we are being asked to trust? Trust who, the CDC? When on one day the CDC says you do not carry COVID virus if vaccinated then the next day having to retract it? When on one day they advise all pregnant women to get the COVID vaccine and then the next day say only if they are eligible to get it? The CDC has lost its credibility. No liability equals no trust. And what about ‘informed consent’? It is not simply “hey you, roll up your sleeve’.
Alarmingly, additional evidence is emerging that COVID-19 is less of a respiratory disease and more of a vascular disease with the ensuing ill effects all generally having vascular underpinnings. But we are arguing that the spike itself may be ‘potentially’ pathogenic and if it has a role in the damaging of vascular cells (damaging/impairing vascular endothelial cells via downregulating the ACE 2 receptor), then by injecting mRNA code to build the spike protein to derive an immune response, or injecting the complete spike itself, then we may be naively or unwittingly injecting the very deleterious spike protein that will wreak havoc on vaccinated persons. Potentially, but there is a real theoretical risk and some may argue, it is already unfolding based on the nascent reports of blood clots and bleeding disorders. The spike protein may emerge as one of the more damaging ingredients in COVID disease and we are giving it to people deliberately, unknowingly.
Whelan further reports “that ACE-2 receptor expression is highest in the microvasculature of the brain and subcutaneous fat, and to a lesser degree in the liver, kidney, and heart. They have further demonstrated that the coronavirus replicates almost exclusively in the septal capillary endothelial cells of the lungs and the nasopharynx, and that viral lysis and immune destruction of those cells releases viral capsid proteins (or pseudovirions) that travel through the circulation and bind to ACE 2 receptors in these other parts of the body leading to mannan-binding lectin complement pathway activation that not only damages the microvascular endothelium but also induces the production of many pro-inflammatory cytokines. Meinhardt et al. (Nature Neuroscience 2020, in press) show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with the formation of microthrombi (clots), and like Magro et al. do not find viral RNA in brain endothelium. In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus”.
Whelan as a pediatrician, has gone even further and must be applauded for his bravery by stating openly that “before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in children, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart… vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies… important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be worse if hundreds of millions of children were to suffer long-lasting damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs”.
As we consider the implications of the spike itself being potentially pathogenic (and this has to be further validated), we have argued prior against children vaccination for COVID and that the science is clear and settled that children do not transmit COVID-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children. Children rarely get infected and biologically, it seems, based on nascent findings, they may be unable to due to less expression of the Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 receptor (ACE 2) in their nasal epithelium (references 1, 2).
The accumulated evidence suggests that children have been less impacted than adults in terms of severityandfrequency, accounting for <2% ofthecases. Children (as opposed to other respiratory illnesses) do not appear to be a major vector of viral transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters. There has been no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission and this has remained the trend across the last 15 months of the pandemic and reported pediatric data. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is settled science on this.
NO Vaccination of Children for COVID-19
This brings us to our core thesis, this being NO vaccination of children for COVID-19. The reality is that our stance on children getting COVID vaccines is similar to our stance on why children must not be forced to wear masks, and especially children as young as two years old. There is no science or data to support this, vaccine or masks. Whatsoever. Israel has now released data showing that all age group infections have declined substantially, while not vaccinating children under 16. Why? Could it be a clear example that children are not the drivers but rather adults are and that by protecting adults using vaccines, children are automatically protected? The Israeli data seem to provide clear evidence why vaccines are not needed in US children.
We have been arguing this and we ask, why would we do this to children then? Why would CDC and Dr. Fauci take such steps when they know that the safety testing will not be suitable and that our children will be at risk to these vaccines if they are not tested properly? We may be setting vaccinated persons up for a disaster, naïvely, and as such, could we be doing the same to our children? We call for an immediate stop! We must not expose our children to ‘unnecessary’ harm. We must not expose them to a substance that has not been tested on children (or plan to be adequately) in the way it should be and for as long as necessary. We cannot circumvent ‘time’ with elevated sample size or any other tactic. This is a nonsensical methodology. These vaccines must be studied for the appropriate length of time. We must not expose children to a vaccine that based on their risk is absolutely not needed. Moreover, they can become infected naturally, if their immunity is needed.
As such, we are asking for a pause on vaccinating all persons with these vaccines until we understand what is emerging and safety is fully declared. Yet beyond that, we find it so very repugnant and dangerous an idea to submit children to these untested vaccine platforms, that once again we realized that we had to take a stand against testing and/or provision of any of the current vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 in children. Moreover, our view is that the risks of the vaccine far outweigh the benefits of persons under the age of 50, and we even argue up to 70 years of age. There should be no coercion or threat of reprisal if one does not want to be vaccinated and we call for a mass suspension of the vaccination in the US and maybe worldwide to assess the serious safety concerns we have. We are calling for proper ‘informed consent’ for all who decide to take the vaccine. We are being threatened when we raise this issue of safety and we are trying to inform the public.
We find it disturbing that the media has never pressed Dr. Fauci on overtly erroneous assertions and other major self-contradictory statements and continues to let him express an opinion without a deeper probing. We have great respect for his career and his bench work, but he is highly inaccurate and out of step with the science on most things COVID-19, the immunology, and the vaccinology, and I/we do not pretend to be any level of expert. Given what is at stake here now, this being the safety of our children, we felt we should take a stand and demand more. If this goes wrong as we think the potential is certainly there and based on what we are seeing with the adult administration of the vaccine, then our children may be left with a lifetime of morbidity, disability, and far worse, death. We demand that Dr. Fauci layout the childhood vaccination evidence for the scientific community (and the public, the parents) to evaluate.
Runinng Behind, and in the Wrong Direction
That said, we are being declarative in our position that our public health agencies like CDC, NIH, and FDA are running 9 to 12 months behind contemporary data and science and are routinely wrong. Dr. Fauci and CDC are wrong on the vaccination of children science as they were on all of the catastrophically destructive societal lockdown, school closure, and mask/mask mandate policies they advocated and implemented. We believe that the currently promulgated policies by the CDC and Dr. Fauci concerned with vaccinating pregnant women is both reckless and perhaps dangerous, since no long-term data exist on the mother or the fetus and the potential ill effects from mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines. We believe they are wrong as it relates to our children as well, with these sub-optimally developed vaccines that are largely long-term safety untested and being administered as ‘investigational’ under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) without the time-tested and honored Biological License Application.
For example, in the Daily Heraldarticle, whereby Dr. Fauci advocates for kids as young as first-grade to be vaccinated by September 2021, he was quoted stating when asked about vaccinating by September 2021, “I would think by the time we get to school opening, we likely will be able to get people who come into the first grade.” We find this by Fauci to be incredibly dangerous and without any merit. Is Dr. Fauci thinking clearly? We believe that the very low circulating virus especially among children prevents a proper study from being undertaken conclusively and would require a large “n” to get meaningful results. The study will also not be conducted for the proper duration to collect the safety data.
The article expressly admitted it will not be possible to do this by stating, “Since children rarely are hospitalized due to COVID-19, the vaccine’s ability to reduce severe cases would be hard to measure unless the trials enrolled an enormous number of children”. The potential harms to the children must always be considered for any intervention in children. This must not be construed as an anti-vaxxer stand, but a sane and logical argument that must be meted out with the requisite intellectual curiosity and scientifically proven evidence. We, therefore, call for no vaccine for our children in this illness and we only discuss this option after we have properly collected long-term safety data collected from children and including safety data from adults.
Current Vaccination Indications & Supporting Evidence
Currently, in the U.S., the vaccine is indicated only for those ages 16 and up. The article referred to several pediatricians and infectious disease experts opining that “vaccinating children is essential to helping the country, as a whole, reach herd immunity and decrease the threat of new variants”. This is a dangerous and inept statement. The global evidence is quite settled that children do not spread the infection or get severely ill if infected, and that they can become immune naturally with regular exposure that is natural and harmless. If children ‘numerically’ are needed to achieve population-level immunity, then why would they not be allowed to achieve immunity naturally, that confers robust protection e.g. T-cell immunity, for many years? Why expose them to an untested and potentially unsafe vaccine that could damage them lifelong? Moreover, we argue that their math is clearly wrong for they routinely discount the contribution made by prior exposure to coronaviruses (common cold) and thus the cross-protection they already have (T-cell immunity). They also discount in their math the vast amount of immunity that prior exposure and recovery from COVID-19 confers. Thus, the nation and states are potentially near or at herd immunity already.
Currently, we have no evidence that any variants are more lethal and the real issue with the variants is the mistake in making vaccines with a very narrow ‘spike-specific’ immunity. Selection pressures from the vaccine as well as from the natural immunity will cause mutations to continue to happen at a pace commensurate with the replicative ability of the virus. A broad natural immunity is more desirable as protection so long as there is minimal risk involved, as we believe is the case with children.
We are very concerned that the American Academy of Pediatrics has been pushing this childhood vaccination and “really advocating to try and make these trials happen with the same urgency that they happen for adults”. This is very troubling and we ask, do they read the science that is available and that has accumulated on the risk to children? Is the Academy of Pediatrics willing to take this safety risk with our children?
The article states that we are mistaken in thinking that children were immune from SARS-CoV-2. We never said this and we do not think anyone has meant this, for what we did state and still strongly believe is that the risk for children is very small, exceedingly rare in all aspects of this virus and illness (acquiring the infection, spreading it to other kids and to adults, and becoming seriously ill). “Children experience lower infection rates, accounting for less than 10 percent of cases in the United States”. If Dr. Fauci and the CDC think otherwise, again, we request such information to be made public. Stating that children spread the virus “to some extent” is grossly misleading. The CDC, Dr. Fauci, and the writer of this slanted inaccurate piece know that this should have been stated as ‘vanishingly small or exceedingly rare, if at all.’ These people know that evidence from Sweden with fully opened schools showed no significant evidence of spread and no deaths.
Key Drivers of SARS-CoV-2
In this regard, it is evident that neither children (nor asymptomatic adults) are the key drivers of SARS-CoV-2. In the rare cases where a child is infected with SARS-CoV-2, it is exceptionally rare for the child to get severely ill or die. And to reiterate, teachers are not at risk of transmission from children and schools are to be reopened immediately with no restrictions. Schools remain the safest place for children and teachers. They should have never remained closed and we knew this for 15 months now, and our children are being harmed by the unholy alliance between unions and government leaders in certain states. The New York Post recently reported of this relationship whereby the Teacher unions have a hand in the devising of CDC school re-open policy. “Emails show a call between Walensky and Weingarten — the former boss of New York City’s United Federation of Teachers — was arranged for Feb 7. The lobbying paid off. In at least two instances, language “suggestions” offered by the union were adopted nearly verbatim into the final text of the CDC document”. However, despite what the media and the CDC and unions are trying to tell the public, the pediatric literature suggests that this is now settled science as to low risk in children. This is not ‘new’ evidence, this has been settled for over one year now, and certainly since last fall 2020.
Dr. Sarah Lang stated para that the issue of children not being in school will be solved if they got immunized. We find this to be reprehensible for this is a blackmail of parents when the children are being denied schooling with no basis due to risk, but by both the Teacher’s unions and the respective state governments and the federal government. Exact words were “Our current chaos about children not being in schools is just terrible for children, and I think a lot of the concern would be assuaged if children were immunized”. We would ask Dr. Lang if she will like to state conclusively that the vaccines as currently devised are ‘safe’ and what is planned will be safe, knowing what is currently occurring in terms of the emerging adverse events and deaths due to the vaccine. Is she prepared to place our children at this unnecessary risk?
O’Leary also stated para that as young as 6-month-old infants can get vaccinated. He knows that the trials will not be powered to detect meaningful differences (a sample size of 3,000 will not allow for the statistical power) and that the duration will not allow for assessment of safety. What this expert has stated is very dangerous. “That’s enough to prove safety and benefit, experts said, in part, because the adult trials have already paved the way”. We find this statement to be incredibly flawed science and dangerous given there are now emerging adverse effects of the vaccines and also, Pfizer as an example, failed to include over 3,000 suspected but unconfirmed infections (with no explanation) and our own calculations showed that the efficacy for mild COVID would have dropped from 95% to 19% if this omitted data was included.
The article reported, “In the absence of a definitive immune correlate of protection, the trials would compare antibody levels in children with those found in adults and extrapolate that the efficacy should then be similar”. We argue that children are not adults and their biological response will differ and we must not extrapolate especially given the harms we see accumulating with these vaccines. Children are still in a growing phase when their brain, neural, vascular and other systems are developing and thus may be subject to developmental anomalies from these untested vaccines.
The article reported that “Pfizer’s and Moderna’s adolescent trials will focus on evaluating participants’ immune response by measuring antibodies”, and it is likely the trials with younger children will do the same. We ask the vaccine developers and Dr. Fauci, do they think this is an appropriate end-point? We do not, and feel that this does not tell us if the recipient will be protected from infection or from acquiring infection, or from getting seriously ill or dying from it. This in no way tells us if the recipient will be immune once vaccinated. This is what parents will want to know if they are going to make a risk management decision to give their child this vaccine. This again raises many questions as to how these trials will be run, what the end goal is, and why the vaccine is needed in our children in the first place.
The article reported, “In the absence of a definitive immune correlate of protection, the trials would compare antibody levels in children with those found in adults and extrapolate that the efficacy should then be similar”. We argue that children are not adults and their biological response will differ and we must not extrapolate especially given the harms we see accumulating with these vaccines.
It is unfortunate that we have arrived at this stage where untruths are elevated to a daily briefing.
And these daily briefings cause irrational fear, panic, and hysteria among the public. These briefings driven by the media cause unnecessary fear despite “a thousandfold difference in risk between old and young.” Such conflation of the risks between the young and the elderly population with comorbidities and at risk is wrong-headed and creates unnecessary fear for all. It is well known that there is a distinct stratified risk (strongly associated with increasing age and comorbidities).
Ending Statements
We end by again stating that the recent push by the CDC, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and other television medical experts who suggest that we can only get to herd immunity by vaccinating our children is absurd and patently false. They continue to inaccurately discount cross protection immunity from prior coronaviruses and common colds. They are pushing a vaccine that is potentially unsafe to our children especially since we have no data on their safety.
Furthermore, data thus far suggest that the COVID ‘variants’ do not drive infection in children and harm them any more than the original strain. There is no basis for such a statement. For those who are trying to frighten parents by the illogical and absurd statements that a lethal strain may emerge among the variants, then we argue that you are using terms like ‘may’ and ‘could’ and ‘might.’ We can find no evidence to support such claims. It is simply rampant supposition and speculation and fear-mongering! Making such claims is not science, and decisions based on such claims are not evidence-based. We need to see the actual science and not just rampant speculation and supposition by often nonsensical media medical experts. We regard the retraction of the double-mask needs as a rampant abuse of the term “science-based.” Because it wasn’t as was the statement that Covid-19 is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu? A very prominent Professor out of Johns Hopkins, Dr. Marty Makary, gets it right now when he calls out these experts and agencies for their foolishness and fear mongering that is often inaccurate. He recently eviscerated CDC’s guidelines and called out Dr. Fauci for his inaccurate claims on herd immunity.
We advocate for the safety of all our children. Parents have a responsibility to ask for and get accurate information from the public sector that governs policy decisions. Parents, so armed, can make appropriate decisions for their children. It is better science to use a more ‘focused‘ protection and targeting that is based on age and known risk factors especially, regarding the children. We abide by the Hippocratic principle of “Primum Non Nocere.”
We conclude that our children must be exempt fully from any of the existing COVID-19 vaccines, and until proper studies are conducted with the proper safety data, and until it can be shown that the benefits far outweigh the risks in the need for the vaccine. There must be no vaccination of our children with these potentially unsafe, untested for safety vaccines. Period! No liability equals no trust and we close by again calling on the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, Dr. Fauci, and vaccine developers to remove the liability waiver. There is no benefit. None. In fact, we call on the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, Dr. Fauci, and vaccine developers to meet with us at any time, to their convenience, collectively or however, to discuss with us, debate with us, why our children should be vaccinated with these vaccines given their risk. We wish this open public discussion to your convenience.
Contact
Paul E. Alexander, PhD … email: elias98_99@yahoo.com
Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD … email: hctkbt822@gmail.com
i) Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University Canada, University of Oxford, and University of Toronto
ii) Howard Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
iii) Parvez Dara MD, FACP, MBA, Consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist
Emergent BioSolutions will be in the spotlight today during a House Select Subcommittee Meeting on the Corona Virus Crisis, today at 10:30 am. It can be watched here.
The first 2 million doses of anthrax vaccine came from a stockpile that had been made for the US army by Michigan’s state vaccine lab (Michigan Biologics Products Institute). What became known in November 1997, after the FDA performed an inspection, was that most of the army’s 11 million dose stockpile of anthrax vaccine, stored at the Michigan lab, was multiply expired, had been redated, and was contaminated, with visible bacterial and fungal growth in some of the lots. FDA immediately shut down the anthrax vaccine factory, and quarantined 9 million of the 11 million existing doses. Unfortunately, FDA allowed the Defense Department to use 2 million doses, which it did over the next two years.
The Conclusions from FDA’s 1998 and 1999 inspection reports of the facility can be read here.
The Michigan state lab was a massive affair with many buildings on a campus in downtown Lansing. It produced a large variety of vaccines and blood products for the state of Michigan. However, over the years the state had not made the required repairs and updates. After the 1997 FDA inspection, Michigan had to repair the place or close it. Michigan decided to sell, and looked for a buyer.
The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Crowe, heard about the sale. He had come to know the el Hibri family when he was Ambassador to the UK. The el Hibri’s had purchased anthrax vaccine from the UK government laboratory at Porton Down just before the Gulf War, and resold it to the Saudi government at a 100x markup.
The new company, formed in the first half of 1998, was named Bioport. It chose to focus on its sales of anthrax vaccine to the Army. However, the new company was deeply concerned about potential liability for the lab’s products. The purchase was delayed until the Secretary of the Army signed an indemnification for injuries that might result from use of anthrax vaccine in soldiers, and it also indemnified the company against claims if the vaccine failed to provide the expected protection against anthrax. The state of Michigan had also been indemnified by the Army to produce the vaccine. But from its 1970 licensure until 1998, almost all the anthrax vaccine had only been used in animal experiments.
After FDA had shuttered the anthrax vaccine plant for manufacturing defects, the Army paid to bulldoze and then rebuild the factory in 1999. But even after it was rebuilt, FDA withheld its approval, and the plant lay idle.
Meantime, the 2 million doses that FDA had failed to quarantine were injected into 500,000 military service-members between 1998 and 2001. Many thousands became ill. An official report on the program, quoting unnamed government officials, claimed that 1-2% of recipients had developed permanent disabilities. The military vaccinations were mandatory, and refusers were punished with a court martial or loss of a month’s pay and performance of extra duties. Nonetheless, seeing the injuries sustained by their colleagues, many refused.
Five Congressional hearings were held throughout 1999 on different aspects of the anthrax vaccine program by the House Committee on Government Reform and National Security (now known as the House Committee on Oversight and Reform). Additional hearings held by other Congressional committees also touched on the vaccine program. The Government Reform and National Security Committee wrote up its findings in a report titled Unproven Force Protection. Its June 30, 1999 hearing dealt specifically with Bioport and its sole source contracts.
Despite this, Bioport has been very successful. Although the Pentagon was considering an end to the anthrax vaccine program in the summer of 2001, the sudden appearance of the anthrax letters after the September 11, 2001 attacks breathed new life into the vaccine program and turned Bioport’s fortunes around. DHHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announced in November 2001 that the anthrax vaccine plant would finally receive an FDA approval and begin production. At the end of January 2002 that is what happened.
But that was not the end of Bioport’s problems. Soldiers challenged the legality of the vaccine’s license in federal court. It was learned that while there had been efficacy testing of an earlier version of the vaccine, the current vaccine formulation had never undergone either efficacy or safety testing in a clinical trial. Aware of this major omission, FDA had withheld the issuing of a “final rule and order” for the anthrax vaccine for over thirty years.
The soldiers prevailed on the legal issues, and First District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan rescinded the vaccine license in 2004, based on the company’s failure to prove efficacy or meet basic FDA standards for licensure.
Unwilling to bow to judicial authority, the Defense Department rolled out a backup plan. A new regulatory authority had just been created, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). An EUA was slapped on the unlicensed anthrax vaccine, and DOD quickly restarted its mandatory vaccinations. (There was no emergency: the issuing of an EUA required only the potential for an emergency.)
The attorneys for the soldiers took the case back to court, and Judge Sullivan ruled that even if an experimental medical product received an EUA, it was still investigational and could not be mandated. The law required that EUA products be offered with informed consent. To receive an EUA (unlicensed) product, the recipient must be apprised of the risks and benefits of the product, be informed of alternatives to the product, and no coercion in any form could be applied. Ergo, no mandate.
FDA waited about 18 months, and then issued a full license for Bioport’s anthrax vaccine, although there were still no efficacy data. FDA instead claimed that a 1950’s era trial of a very different anthrax vaccine was sufficient for licensure, even though that trial failed to show benefit against inhalation anthrax.
When the soldiers and their attorneys challenged the licensing decision in court, the next judge ruled in favor of FDA on the basis of “deference”—meaning that FDA could ignore its own regulations when making a determination on safety and efficacy, with or without acceptable data. In 2006 mandatory vaccination restarted.
Bioport then shed its old skin in an attempt to leave its baggage behind. It renamed itself Emergent BioSolutions. Its vaccine had been renamed BioThrax.
Emergent BioSolutions (EBS) then branched out, buying other companies, primarily those making other sole source biodefense products. The military continued to mandate anthrax and (in 2003) smallpox vaccines for service-members. Eventually EBS purchased the smallpox company as well, and the cholera and typhoid vaccines used in the US.
A 2010 report on Emergent BioSolutions, written by Scott Lilly for the Center for American Progress, was titled, “Getting Rich off Uncle Sucker.” It revealed 300% profit margins, unique for a government contractor.
In 2012 EBS got one of three DHHS contracts to house a so-called Center for Innovation in Advanced Development and Manufacturing (CIADM) that could be used to produce pandemic or biodefense products in the event of emergencies. With this grant EBS purchased and expanded what became its Bayview factory in Baltimore. The CIADM contract essentially guaranteed Emergent a big role in any future pandemic response.
Emergent acquired the maker of Narcan nasal spray, the opioid overdose antidote. Soon FDA began recommending to prescribers that they write a Narcan script whenever they wrote a narcotic script, just in case. States started buying large quantities for free distribution. Sales rose 600% after EBS bought the company.
Under the Trump administration, retired Air Force Colonel, physician and biodefense consultant Robert Kadlec was appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary of DHHS for Preparedness and Emergency Response (aka ASPR). Kadlec had also been a consultant and business partner of EBS’ founder and chairman Fuad el-Hibri. Kadlec had omitted this information from the required disclosures for Senate confirmation. Once confirmed as Assistant Secretary, Kadlec was able to transfer responsibility for the National Strategic Stockpile (containing the US stockpiles of pandemic remedies, masks and equipment) from the CDC to his own agency. Kadlec then gave multiple sweetheart deals to EBS, until the value of EBS’ contracts with ASPR exceeded those of every other contractor.
Covid-19 presented a huge opportunity for Emergent BioSolutions. EBS received $628 million from DHHS to retool its CIADM factory. It inked additional contracts with the Astra-Zeneca, Johnson and Johnson, Novavax, Providence Therapeutics and VaxArt companies to provide bulk manufacturing of their vaccines in its Baltimore facilities. Altogether its pandemic contracts were worth about $1.5 Billion. It was slated to manufacture 9 separate medical products to address Covid-19, all designed by other companies.
But there were serious potential problems.
While it had a storied Board of former federal officials, Emergent BioSolutions had never brought a single product to market. Its expertise was in contracting and acquisitions, not production. It had a history of production failures, and had demanded that the federal government bail the company out, or else the sole source products the company provided would become unavailable. Some of this was detailed in the Congressional report Unproven Force Protection. Entering the pandemic, EBS was still making the same mistakes it had been guilty of twenty years earlier:
EBS sold and continues to sell nerve gas auto-injectors to federal agencies which have been defective and are not licensed. According to the law, these products can neither be produced in the US nor sold here. Instead, Emergent manufactures them in Germany and restricts its sales to US embassies overseas.
EBS did not have an active workforce in Baltimore. On September 30, EBS held an online job fair which it titled “Warp Speed Careers Event.” The event sought to recruit 300 employees. Yet EBS had begun inking vaccine contracts 5 months earlier, and could have hired and trained a workforce that was ready to go when FDA gave it the go-ahead. Instead, doing things on the cheap, EBS hired late, failed to provide adequate training to its employees, and experienced a spectacular series of production failures. Many millions of doses of its Johnson and Johnson and its Astra-Zeneca Covid vaccines had to be dumped. J and J missed its 20 million dose quota for the end of March, and FDA, despite repeated inspections, would not give the plant an authorization so its products could be used.
Despite this, somehow millions of doses produced in the unauthorized plant were shipped to Canada, the European Union, South Africa and Mexico. The EU, at least, used the product. How did that occur? We don’t know. Did any get distributed in the US? We can’t be sure none did.
On April 4, 2021, EBS announced it would receive an additional $23 million from DHHS for new equipment to use in the manufacture of Johnson and Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine.
As of last week, EBS was facing another lawsuit from its shareholders, and its stock price had fallen to $60 from the peak on February 12 of $125 per share. However, Emergent CEO Robert Kramer exercised his stock options in January and February, near the stock’s peak, earning himself over $7 million dollars in profit.
In summary, EBS, despite considerable manufacturing shortcomings, has been extremely successful at obtaining government contracts and earning huge profits. But its products have repeatedly been unreliable. The company has managed to turn failures into success, especially when its products, like civilian stockpiles of anthrax and smallpox vaccine, and nerve gas auto-injectors, are stockpiled but not used.
The public has only gradually been learning that the vaccines it thought were being produced by huge Pharma companies Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson were in fact being manufactured by the anthrax vaccine company, Emergent BioSolutions. How did it come to pass that the federal government, and these established pharmaceutical companies, bet the farm on EBS’ production of Covid-19 vaccines?
IN THE previous instalments I explored the extraordinary hold Bill Gates has over global health policy and the spread of its influence right into the heart of British public health policy via the funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (GF) of science businesses, foundations and public bodies through a complex web of interconnection and crossover of personnel.
This, however, is not the sum total of the GF’s reach into the world of British science and public health. It has been funding British university science departments, projects, and individuals for more than two decades. The topics involved include research into and manufacturing of vaccines.
No government-appointed science committee has influenced public health policy as much as Sage. Many of its members, who cross over with Independent Sage and Nervtag and are already somewhat compromised by connections to the GF-funded GlaxoSmithKline and Wellcome Foundation, are also employees of universities and colleges which have received massive GF grants and, in some cases, work in partnership with them. Three of Sage’s members, Professors Graham Medley, Andrew Rambaut and Matt Keeling, are individual recipients of grants from the GF.
Readers may remember the three modelling papers produced by Imperial College London (ICL), Warwick University and the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine (LSHTM) which received considerable press attention at the end of March, and their dramatic simultaneous warnings of a ‘third’ Covid-19 wave and new lethal variants; cautioning (yet again) how this will put the NHS under stress. All recommended stricter lockdowns, Test and Trace and, tellingly, booster vaccines.
SPI-M-O had assigned each university a specific task: ICL’s was ‘Evaluating England’s Roadmap out of Lockdown’, Warwick’s to produce ‘Road Map Scenarios and Sensitivity’ and LSHTM’s to make an ‘Interim roadmap assessment: prior to Step 2’.
Promoting the ICL paper was none other than the multi-tasking Sage member Professor Neil Ferguson, co-founder and Principal Investigator of the Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (MRC GIDA) at Imperial College, a centre that works closely with the GF, the Global Fund and Gavi, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health at ICL, a Director and Adviser at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and a recipient of cloud computing time from Microsoft and Amazon for Covid-19 modelling.
Warwick’s paper emphasised the ‘danger’ of new variants to an even greater degree than the ICL paper. It warned that ‘stringent methods’ would be needed to counteract them and that the current vaccination programme might not adequately contain them.
The paper produced by the LSHTM group was the most pessimistic of all. It warned that a ‘third wave’ and new variants would bring a high death toll. It also stressed the need for Test and Trace which, together with that other Sage recommendation, vaccine passports, is the new formula for digital slavery and a surveillance state.
How Ferguson, whose modelling methodologies and predictions had been so comprehensively discredited, was getting away with this repeat performance seemed baffling, but for the fact that as a key member of the SPI-M-O subgroup he had been able to commission the new modelling research as well as that of supportive colleagues at Warwick University and the LSHTM.
Curiously, several SPI-M-O members turn out to be affiliated to one or another of these three universities too and are the very same academics who wrote these modelling papers. Given that they have commissioned themselves and sit on the subgroup, no independent assessment or scrutiny of their work has taken place. This is the epitome of jobs for the boys and girls.
Here are the SPI-M-O members connected to ICL:
Professors Neil Ferguson (Sage), Stephen Brett, Nicholas Grassly, Steven Riley, Wendy Barclay (Sage) and Drs Marc Baguelin, Samir Bhatt and Tim Lucas. Ferguson and Baguelin contributed to the ICL paper.
Here are the SPI-M-O members who work at Warwick University:
Professor Matt Keeling and Drs Louise Dyson, Edward Hill, Michael Tildesley and Joe Hilton. Keeling, Dyson, Tildesley and Hill are four out of five authors of the Warwick paper.
The following SPI-M-O members are connected to the LSHTM:
Professors John Edmunds (Sage), Mark Jit, Graham Medley (Sage), Drs Nick Davies, Rosalind Eggo, Sebastian Funk, Thibaut Jombart, Petra Klepac, Adam Kurcharski, Rohini Mathur, Sam Clifford, Elizabeth Fearon, Gwen Knight and Bill Quilty. Edmunds, Jit and Davies are three out of four of the authors of the LSHTM paper.
The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, is a member of both Sage and SPI-M-O.
It will surprise few readers to learn that ICL, Warwick University and the LSHTM, are historically heavily funded by the GF.
The GF made its first grant to ICL of $31.9million in 2000. ICL received a further $46.7million from the GF in 2006 to research tropical diseases. The GF granted ICL a total of $446,205 in 2019 for research into enteric and diarrhoeal diseases, technology solutions, malaria, and ‘Discovery and Translational Sciences’. In 2020 it gave ICL a total of $91.5million for studies into polio, tuberculosis, global health, technology solutions, malaria, HIV, Discovery and Translational Sciences and family planning.
Last January, Sage member Professor Sir Mark Walport was appointed chair of the Imperial College Academic Health Science Centre (AHSC) Strategic Partnership. His ICL colleagues Professor Robin Grimes and Dr David Halpern sit on Sage too. Professor Ferguson and two ICL colleagues, Professors Wendy Barclay and Peter Openshaw, are members of Nervtag as well.
Warwick University’s GF funding goes back to 2015. An initial grant of $20,000 from the GF rapidly increased to a current total of $8.3million. In 2017, the GF awarded Warwick University $3million to research disease modelling, and in 2020 $2.2million to study neglected tropical diseases.
Sage member Professor Yvonne Doyle works at the LSHTM as does Nervtag member Professor John Edmunds and Independent Sage member Professor Martin McKee. Professor Edmunds was recently a recipient of a grant worth £5million from UKRI, which collaborates with the GF, to study disease modelling in Africa.
The late Professor Val Curtis, a member of Independent Sage, also worked at the LSHTM.
Predictably, none of the recent modelling by this closed shop takes into account the economic damage, social disintegration or consequences of lockdown, or the neglect of non-Covid-19 diseases as a result of lockdown and social distancing policies. Yet all this is now extensively catalogued. The conflicts of interest and cross over with these government advisers and highly directed research in universities heavily funded by GF, which has one narrow vision global vaccination agenda, is alarming.
Even more alarming is that it is on this basis that an unaccountable and unelected body has effectively dictated Government policy and our lives this past year. Its controversially modelled predictions of worst-case scenarios, none of which to date have been borne out, have been useful for two things: terrifying the populace into submission and priming the government, and us, into further lockdowns next autumn and winter – and establish them as the ‘new normal’.
Whether the men and women named here are useful idiots for Gates, or self-servers without moral compass, such scientific narrow vision reflects very poorly on them and their institutions.
The tentacles of the GF are everywhere. In the final part of this series I will be looking at its funding of the Oxford Recovery trials, Cambridge Science Park, its interconnections with the AstraZeneca project, its funding of several other universities, and finally at its investment in Serco, one of the outsourcing companies behind the Test and Trace programme.
Recycling was introduced, worldwide, as a tool to teach citizens to become compliant.
Forcing citizens to sort their rubbish into up to nine separate bags or boxes every week had absolutely nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’ and everything to do with teaching citizens (through a mixture of fines and shame) to behave ‘responsibly’ i.e. to do as they were told without looking too closely at the rationale of what they were being told to do.
The recycling never had anything to do with protecting the planet, of course. Most of the rubbish sorted, washed and collected in the UK was taken abroad, by lorry or ship or train, and burnt or dumped. It was, quite simply, impractical and not cost effective to recycle the material that had been collected. And, of course, collecting the sorted rubbish involved massive costs in terms of cash and pollution.
Today, the recycling business has reached an apogee of lunacy. Councils introduce ever more complex rules and fees. They refuse to take away much of the waste that is collected. And those wanting to take their rubbish to a ‘recycling’ centre will probably have to make an appointment and answer a host of questions.
It is no surprise that fly-tipping has become a major problem. The biggest causes of plastic in the sea are dumped fishing gear and plastic waste (much of it officially designated as recycled) which has been dumped by ships.
The good news, however, is that in Britain, recycling rates are falling. More and more people have become aware that the whole recycling movement was just another piece of manipulative trickery.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
