Fauci Goes to Princeton

BY MARK OSHINSKIE | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JUNE 3, 2022
Last month, I went to Princeton to protest the University’s “Class Day” speaker, Tony Fauci. It astounded me that students would invite someone who stole over two years of their college experiences and young lives. By selecting Fauci, Princeton students showed that they’re celebrity worshipers, not critical thinkers.
The students certainly didn’t vet Fauci by reading RFK Jr.’s The Real Anthony Fauci, which reveals how corrupt, hostile and destructive this Napoleonic tyrant is. The Princeton grads I know are all Groupthinkers. Most tend not to speak well in English, much less in a second language. Like Fauci, they’re very overrated.
I was among a dozen protesters who displayed signs as we stood on the Nassau Street sidewalk just outside the campus gates. My sign had two sides, One side said, “Vaxxes Did Not Stop the Spread.” The other side said, “Hopkins Study (February, 2022): Fauci Lied.”
Fauci recently claimed that lockdowns, masks, tests and “vaccines” had saved many lives. The Hopkins study shredded this notion and observed that Faucist “mitigation” strategies have caused tremendous, lasting harm.
Many drivers who passed us honked approvingly. Numerous strangers approached and expressed agreement with us or passed by with thumbs up. Some said they bought the fear for a month until they began to change their minds. I’ve heard that often, and never understood it. The powergrab was obvious from Day 1. Why lock down healthy people for the first time in human history when only a tiny fraction of some very old, very sick people had—at least purportedly—died from this infection?
Lockdowners never presented evidence that would have sustained a reasonable burden of proof. Allowing Coronamania to begin, unchallenged, was a massive error. Once this started, it became entrenched.
While many Americans complain, only a tiny percentage will actively protest. I’ve been to half a dozen Corona rallies over the past two years. Most were lightly attended. It’s pathetic that so many Americans have passively tolerated this nonsense.
I asked those who heard the speech and mocked Fauci when we met by the campus entrance if they had booed him. They said they didn’t. When I asked why, they said they didn’t want to upset other people; as if, after having seen the world opportunistically, permanently damaged by 27 months of Faucism, booing would have been indelicate. People accepted profound mistreatment in order to avoid conflict.
After all this time, some fools still buy Coronamania. Some ceremony-goers walked past, wearing masks. A few cast disapproving glances that they mistakenly thought would bother us protesters. Some passersby also muttered unintelligibly. A fellow protester noted, “They always say shit as they’re walking away.”
We protesters were kept too far from the speech to hear it. So I read the text on-line. First, though others have lambasted Fauci’s AIDs work, Fauci portrayed himself as a heroic public servant during that era. Second, he asserted that systemic racism caused Covid to kill more minorities. Finally, he warned that Covid showed us to avoid purveyors of “misinformation.”
Fauci delivered a self-revealing meta-message to college grads: when your work product sucks, gaslight and resort to name-calling and PC demagoguery. His stated concern about misinformation is painfully ironic, as it comes from someone who has lied his way through the past two years and, according to peers, many years prior.
Playing the race card, Fauci pointed out that minorities unfairly had to work during the pandemic because many were “essential workers.” But didn’t Fauci recommend that essential workers should continue working? Do the stats back his facile claim that too many minorities were essential workers; weren’t there tens of millions of White essential workers? And how many healthy, working-age people—of any race or ethnicity—died of Coronavirus? Facts don’t constrain Fauci. He’s the consummate tropester. And he was playing to a trope-hungry crowd.
Further, while I know the vaxxes are ineffective at best, Fauci still inaccurately maintains that the vaxxes work great. He often lied that those who didn’t vaxx had created “a Pandemic of the Unvaccinated.” Yet, during his speech he declined to mention the lower vaxx rates among minorities, despite that the shots were aggressively promoted, and free. A disproportionate number of minorities, cf., majority populations, defied Fauci’s exhortation and astutely knew not to go along.
The Eighteenth Century British writer, Samuel Johnson, and Bob Dylan both said that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” The same is true of Fauci’s showy anti-racism. To obscure his venal misconduct and terrible record, Fauci touts himself as a champion of minorities. But how many urban/rural minorities does Fauci know? Do you think his kids went to school with Hispanic or Black kids? Doesn’t he think he’s better, and deserves to be paid far more, than minority essential workers?
Fauci also neglected to mention a May 5, 2022 Harvard study that predictably concluded that the Covid school closures he endorsed had disparately harmed minority students.
Hearing the biggest liar since Pinocchio call others “misinformers” is gruesome. Aside from his demonstrably false statements about the vaxxes’ purported effectiveness and safety, and the lockdown and school closure effects, Fauci also said masks worked, although all serious evidence shows they don’t.
Fauci also stated that he didn’t fund gain-of-function research, though he did. He repeatedly relied on high cycle PCR tests to measure “cases,” when even the test’s inventor, Kary Mullis, and the NY Times said that they shouldn’t be. Additionally, Fauci wrongly predicted that motorcycle rallies and college football games would be super-spreader events. All of these assertions—and many more—were obvious misinformation.
A decent attorney or interviewer would easily expose Fauci’s pervasive dishonesty. But he’s hidden himself from those who know what a fraud he is, and the bought media has never asked him any serious questions. He’s repeatedly lied for 27 months while making a series of absurd recommendations that some people, like Princeton grads, still somehow take seriously. A Class Day website photo shows the fully-jabbed graduating sheep giddily bumping elbows with their diminutive Dear Leader.
A brush with someone famous! I must post this on Instagram! Dopamine rush! I am… somebody!
Twenty-seven months into this, a mandated truth-serum injection might have prompted Fauci to make the following remarks, instead of those he actually made:
Esteemed, albeit naive, Class of 2022, et al.:
I know that your college experience sucked. You sat in front of screens most of the time and you could’ve done that at home. Two years that should have been special are gone forever. But eff you all. Your entire generation is expendable. I wanted to oust Trump. He deserved it because he was too stupid to know I was spouting nonsense and he let me run the show.
Two weeks to flatten the curve; wear double masks; take tests that yield up to 90% false positives; avoid funerals and cancel weddings because you might spread “droplets;” ignore natural immunity and take your mandated jabs, even if they’ve not only failed but are injuring and even killing people; and boost up multiple times—I’ll tell you how many. Becauss (I pronounce that word oddly) I’m the Soy-ence! (That word, too).
You believed all that, and much more, without asking any questions. Because that’s what excellent college students, such as those at Princeton, do. It’s more important to have people like you than it is to seek the truth. How do you express that aphorism in Latin? (This is an allusion to a pretentious/whimsical Princeton tradition).
I’ve loved this two-year power trip. I always wanted to be on TV and I got to do that often with fawning, mindless, bought interviewers. I even got to throw a ceremonial first pitch at a baseball game. I’ll bet you didn’t know I consider myself a good athlete.
I’ve become a multi-millionaire working for the government despite doing an awful job. Although I’m elfin, evil and dishonest, people bow down to me because I dish out the grant money that’s the lifeblood of academic sycophants. Whatever you end up doing, try to make and control a lot of cash, congratulate yourself and speak in PC cliches. If you do, you can con people into calling you “successful” and even an “expert” and a “public servant.” Class of 2022, you’re ideally suited to become tools who just might worsen the deep, vast damage I’ve done. But I doubt you can top me.
So long, suckers. As Otter said at the end of that college movie classic, Animal House, “You effed up. You trusted us.”
Ex-Louvre director charged in Egyptian artifacts trafficking case
Press TV – May 28, 2022
The former president of the Louvre museum in Paris has been charged with fraud in acquisition of archaeological treasures that may have been taken out of Egypt during the Arab Spring uprisings.
Jean-Luc Martinez who ran the Paris Louvre, the most visited museum in the world, from 2013-21 was charged this week after he was taken in by police for questioning, a French judicial source told Agence France-Presse.
Martinez, who now serves as an ambassador for international cooperation in the field of heritage, stepped down as the Louvre’s president last year.
He was charged with fraud and “concealing the origin of criminally obtained works by false endorsement,” according to a French judicial source.
Martinez, who has denied any wrongdoing, is also accused of neglecting fake certificates of origin for the pieces.
The case, which threatens to embarrass the French culture ministry and ministry for foreign affairs, was opened in July 2018, two years after the Louvre Abu Dhabi bought a rare pink granite stele depicting the pharaoh Tutankhamun and four other ancient works for €8m (£6.8m).
French investigators suspect that hundreds of artifacts were pillaged during the public uprising in Middle-East that engulfed several Middle Eastern countries in the early 2010s.
These were then believed to have been sold to galleries and museums that did not ask too many questions about previous ownership, nor look closely enough at potential incoherence in the works’ certificates of origin.
Several countries are thought to have been affected by artifacts being pillaged, including Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria.
Another prized Egyptian work, the gilded coffin of the priest Nedjemankh, which was bought by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 2017, was at the center of a separate inquiry by New York prosecutors.
The Met, however, said it had been the victim of false statements and fake documentation, and that the coffin would be returned to Egypt.
Ukraine to get just 15% of $40-bln US aid, but must return entire sum, Duma speaker says
TASS | May 24, 2022
Russia’s State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin took to his Telegram channel to highlight that the US and its partners do not plan to provide real assistance to Ukraine.
Ukraine will only get 15% of the $40 billion promised by the US, he said.
“Washington and Brussels do not really intend to help Ukraine, or solve its economic and social issues. They only need Ukraine to fight Russia till the last Ukrainian,” Volodin said.
According to the recent aid to Ukraine legislation signed by President Joe Biden, 35% of the $40 billion is going to finance the US Armed Forces, he explained. Meanwhile, 45.2% of that amount is set to be spent on other countries, not Ukraine, while another 4.8% will be earmarked to support refugees, and restore the US diplomatic mission in Ukraine. “Ukraine will only receive 15% of the allotted sum,” the speaker revealed.
But Ukrainians will have to pay off the whole sum, he said. The US is aware that Kiev will not be able to service the debt in the future. “That is why they are seizing Ukraine’s last reserves, including grain, which is what we are seeing right now”.
Bill Gates’ media control dream

By Keean Bexte | The Counter Signal | May 19, 2022
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has doled out over $319 million in grants, awards, and charity to media organizations, including $38 million to so-called “investigative journalism” centres.
According to Mint Press News (MPN), which sorted through over 30,000 documents, Bill Gates has given roughly $38 million to investigate journalism centres aimed at training journalists. Of this sum, over $20 million has gone to the International Center for Journalists, which “builds the expertise and digital skills journalists need to deliver trustworthy news essential for vibrant societies.”
The generous donations given to the ICFJ over several years have been given with the express purpose of producing journalists who focus on “data-driven health and development news reports to help African media to better contribute to setting development agendas and furthering public accountability,” according to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s website.
Producing health-obsessed investigative journalists is a common trend with Gates.
According to the Foundation’s website, the Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism received its grant ($3,800,357) to “support sustained high-quality, evidence-based, and solutions-oriented media coverage of global health and development issues in Primary Health Care systems, Agriculture & Financial Inclusion.”
Other recipients of over $1 million include The Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting ($2,432,552) to “support editorial projects focused on global health issues,” Fondation EurActiv Politech ($2,368,300), International Women’s Media Foundation ($1,500,000), Center for Investigative Reporting – $1,446,639, InterMedia Survey institute ($1,297,545), and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism ($1,068,169).
Put simply, it appears Bill Gates wants to install a personal army of professional scrutineers in various media outlets that disseminate his position on healthcare and propaganda about public officials who deviate.
Gates also, of course, funds the journalism programs of several universities, including Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, the University of California Berkeley, Tsinghua University, Seattle University, Rhodes University, and Montclair State University.
Harvard University (of which Gates is a dropout), the University of Southern California, Boston University, and Ahmadu Bello University have also received money from Gates’ Foundation to take on various media projects.
Producing new journalists isn’t the only area in media that Gates is focusing on, though. He also targets experienced journalists in legacy media organizations. According to MPN’s report, a total of $166.2 million has been given to well-known legacy media organizations.
“The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gateses hearts. For example, the $3.6 million CNN grant went towards “report[ing] on gender equality with a particular focus on least developed countries, producing journalism on the everyday inequalities endured by women and girls across the world,” while the Texas Tribune received millions “to increase public awareness and engagement of education reform issues in Texas.” Given that Bill is one of the charter schools’ most fervent supporters, a cynic might interpret this as planting pro-corporate charter school propaganda into the media, disguised as objective news reporting,” reports MPN.
Just over one decade ago, Bill Gates was under fire for his attempt to control the media through spread-out donations, but this fire seems to have flickered out until recently.
“Beyond their subject matter, these [health report stories] have something else in common: They were all bankrolled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,” the Seattle Times wrote in 2011.
“Better-known for its battles against global disease, the giant philanthropy has also become a force in journalism.”
“The foundation’s grants to media organizations such as ABC and The Guardian, one of Britain’s leading newspapers, raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?”
Unsurprisingly, the Seattle Times and the Blethen Corporation do not appear to have ever received money from Bill Gates.
It’s Time That U.S. Taxpayers Defund The Davos Sponsor – World Economic Forum
The WEF soaked up $60 million In taxpayer funding over the last eight years
By Adam Andrzejewski | OpenTheBooks | May 19, 2022
Davos. It’s a “playground” for the world’s billionaire business elite. Every year, like swans, the rich, pretty, and powerful people descend upon a picturesque ski town in Switzerland to mix with world leaders. They discuss shaping our future into a utopian global society.
For the first time since 2019, the 2022 Davos meeting will be in person beginning Sunday, May 22.
The host organization, World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by German economist Klaus Schwab, says it provides a platform for high-powered leaders to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.” It’s all pretty gauche, with heady thoughts about the world order. Much of this runs contrary to American values.
Attendees cough up $28,000 just for a ticket, with a coveted all-access badge fetching more like $50,000 – and that’s before attendees spend tens or hundreds of thousands on private air travel, ski chalets, and entertainment. Then, the event devolves into brazen networking among tycoons and public officials.
You probably didn’t even realize it, but you – the American taxpayer – helped fund the sponsoring organization with tens of millions of dollars in federal grants.
Since 2013, WEF received nearly $60 million from U.S. taxpayers. Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com found that under the Trump Administration, the WEF received $33 million, which outpaced the $26 million in second-term Obama-era funding.
Why are American taxpayers funding this organization?
Our national debt exceeds $30 trillion and there are cascading world crises. Obviously, the U.S. should not subsidize an organization whose member companies are already fabulously wealthy – and whose largest annual conference functions as a magnet for the super-rich. (As of January 2017 the WEF membership and partnership fees ranged from $65,000 to $650,000 annually.)
“The real magic [of Davos] happens behind closed doors,” Business Insider writes. “The rich and powerful use the event as a chance to network and hash out their differences out of the public eye.”
Hypocrisy takes center stage: the WEF criticizes CEOs making much more than their employees, while Davos gathers the world’s super rich. Schwab himself has come under scrutiny for using WEF funds and business contracts to enhance his own personal wealth.
It sure doesn’t make it sound like America’s strategic or financial interests are being prioritized. It gets worse when you consider the themes of Davos-hosted discussions.
In January 2021, the Davos conference became a vehicle for promoting the “Great Reset,” a concept Schwab developed in his book about Covid-19 with French economist Thierry Malleret. It’s described as a guide to understand how the virus “disrupted our social and economic systems, and what changes will be needed to create a more inclusive, resilient and sustainable world going further.”
The authors look at what “the root causes of these crises were, and why they lead to a need for a Great Reset” of our global social, economic and political systems.
Schwab advocated seizing the pandemic to “reset and reshape the world,” as climate change, inequality and poverty gained greater urgency during the crisis.
If you guessed that would involve bigger governments, more taxes and spending, and more surveillance of citizens, you’d be correct.
One book reviewer summarized Schwab’s point: “Governments’ poor track record isn’t because of incompetence or corruption, but because it is simply not powerful enough.”
Schwab’s thesis, according to the review: “society is at a crossroads, facing a post-pandemic future that either returns to an uncertain and precarious (but familiar) pre-pandemic state or moves on” to being “‘more inclusive, more equitable, and more respectful of Mother Nature.’”
Losing individual liberty, and giving government more power and tax money isn’t what most Americans consider an appealing way to make the world a better place.
So, how did WEF soak up nearly $60 million in U.S. taxpayer funding since 2013?
It was mostly through the State Department’s USAID; taxpayers paid $16 million to support the WEF Grow Africa program, which facilitated trade partnerships between agricultural businesses and African governments. Another $43 million went to WEF’s Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation program, to “boost competitiveness and business conditions, which are key drivers of inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction” in developing countries.
While we can debate the worthiness of those efforts, funding from the world’s greatest superpower only boosts the WEF’s credibility. In Davos, these Klaus-ocrats socialize with heads of state, diplomats and journalists. For example, the Great Reset discussions included IMF Director Kristalina Georgieva; Charles, Prince of Wales; and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, among others. Presidents Trump and Obama both have attended meetings.
The 2022 meeting will “offer world leaders an opportunity to take stock of the state of the world and shape partnerships and policies for the crucial period ahead.”
One can only hope the discussions are as ineffective as critics suggest. America must stop subsidizing the hosts of this lavish globalist soiree.
After all, this organization wants to press the reset button on our way of life.
Adam Andrzejewski is the CEO and founder of OpenTheBooks.com – the largest private database of U.S. public-sector expenditures.
Pfizer Document Dump Shows Doctor With Ties to Gates Foundation Deleted Trial Participant’s Vaccine Injury
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 18, 2022
An 80,000-page cache of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sheds light on Pfizer’s extensive vaccine trials in Argentina, including the unusually large size of the trials and the story of a trial participant whose vaccine reaction was “disappeared.”
The case of Augusto Roux in Argentina suggests that in at least one instance, a trial participant whose symptoms were determined to be connected to the COVID-19 vaccine was later listed, in official records, as having experienced adverse events that were not related to the vaccination.
Vaccine trials in Argentina also appear to have glossed over adverse events suffered by other trial participants, and the potential connection between the adverse events and the vaccine.
The FDA on May 2 released the latest cache of documents, which pertain to the Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer’s vaccine, as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act request filed in August 2021.
As previously reported by The Defender, the documents included Case Report Forms from Pfizer COVID vaccine trials in the U.S., and the “third interim report” from BioNTech’s trials conducted in Germany, both of which listed adverse events sustained by participants in the U.S. and German trials.
Many of these adverse events were indicated as being “unrelated” to the vaccines — even in instances where the patients were healthy or otherwise had no prior medical history related to the injuries they sustained.
Story of ‘disappeared patient’ goes public
Several bloggers and online investigators called into question various aspects of the Argentine vaccine trials, pointing out the number of participants in the Argentine trials dwarfed that of other, typically smaller trials at other locations in different countries.
They also pointed out the large number of participants appeared to have been recruited to the trial in a remarkably short time, and questioned the connections between one of the key figures of the Argentine trial to vaccine manufacturers, Big Pharma and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The large number of trial participants in Argentina may be related to the fact that the trial appears to have been held simultaneously in 26 hospitals.
The large number of participants is revealed in another of the documents released this month, where on page 2,245, the list of randomized participants at trial site 1231 begins, while on page 4,329, the list of participants at trial site 4444 begins.
Site 1231 refers to the main trial site location and 4444 (page 24) most likely refers to the disparate hospitals participating in the trial outside the main location.
Commenting on the revelation, blogger David Healy wrote:
“About 5,800 volunteers were enrolled, half getting the active vaccine. This is almost 4 times more than the next largest centre in this trial.
“Amazingly 467 doctors were almost instantly signed up and trained as assistant investigators in the study.”
In all, 4,501 patients participated in the Argentine trials, representing 10% of all Pfizer trial participants worldwide.
Complete information about adverse events during this extensive trial in Argentina does not appear to have been released as of this writing.
However, Roux’s experience has since become public.
Roux, often referred to as the “disappeared” patient, volunteered for the trial (volunteer number 12312982) and received his first dose of the Pfizer vaccine on Aug. 21, 2020.
According to Healy, Roux “felt pain and swelling in his arm right after the injection. Later that day he had nausea, difficulty swallowing, and felt hungover.”
After a series of symptoms, Roux — during a clinical trial visit on Aug. 23, 2020 — was classified as experiencing a “toxicity grade 1 adverse effect.”
He nevertheless received his second dose on Sept. 9, 2020.
According to Healy:
“On the way home by taxi, he started feeling unwell. At 19:30, he was short of breath, had a burning pain in his chest and was extremely fatigued. He lay on his bed and fell asleep. He woke up at 21:00 with nausea and fever (38-39 C) and was unable to get out of bed due to the fatigue.
“Over the next two days, he reports a high fever (41 C) and feeling delirious.
“On September 11, he was able to get out of bed and go to the bathroom when he observed his urine to be dark (like Coca-Cola). He felt as if his heart expanded, had a sudden lack of breath and fell unconscious on the floor for approximately 3 hours.
“Once he recovered, he felt tired, was uncomfortable, had a high heart rate on minor movement, was dizzy when changing posture. He had a chest pain which radiated to his left arm and back.”
On Sept. 12, 2020, Roux was admitted to the Hospital Alemán, where he stayed for two days. It was initially believed he had COVID-19, but he tested negative for the virus. His symptoms also were found to not correspond with viral pneumonia.
After a series of X-rays, CT scans and urine tests, Roux was discharged Sept. 14, 2020, after being diagnosed with an adverse reaction — specifically, an unequivocal pericardial effusion — to the coronavirus vaccine (high probability), according to his discharge summary.
Doctor who altered Roux’s record had ties to Gates, NIH, Big Pharma
However, on Sept. 17, Dr. Fernando Polack, Pfizer’s lead investigator for the Argentine trials according to a Pfizer document released in December 2021, reported in Roux’s record that his “hospitalization was not related to the vaccine.”
Even after Roux’s discharge, his health difficulties continued. As reported by Healy:
“On November 13 [2020], he had negative IgG and IgM SARS COV-2 (QML technique), which is unusual post vaccine.
“On February 24, 2021, a liver scan showed a minor degree of abnormality. In March 2021 and February 2022, his liver enzymes remained abnormal.”
Ultimately, Roux lost 14 kilograms (30.8 pounds) in a period of three to four months, and continued to suffer from fever and bouts of breathlessness for several months afterward.
Polack, who reported Roux’s hospitalization as unrelated to the vaccination, is known for his close ties with various vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
For instance, he is listed as the lead author in a Dec. 31, 2020, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article on the purported efficacy of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
According to Healy, Polack also appears to be the founder of iTRIALS, a trial site management company, and another organization located at the same physical headquarters, the Fundación INFANT.
Healy wrote:
“When COVID struck Argentina, [Polack] and his Fundación became involved in a trial of immune plasma, taken from patients who had recovered from COVID, given to patients who had recently acquired the disease.
“In May 2020 he speculated that this would make COVID like an ordinary cold, and the Gates Foundation would offer financial support. He used high-profile press conferences to disseminate his exciting message.”
The conclusion of the study published in the NEJM following the plasma study reads:
“Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund; Dirección de Sangre y Medicina Transfusional del Ministerio de Salud number, PAEPCC19, Plataforma de Registro Informatizado de Investigaciones en Salud number, 1421, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04479163.”
According to Healy, “[a] subsequent systematic review and meta-analysis failed to confirm these findings, noting ‘very serious imprecision concerns.’”
Healy pointed out that Polack, in his NEJM disclosure statement, did not indicate any conflict of interest or financial interest in the COVID-19 vaccine trials in Argentina, but:
“Polack reported grants from Novavax and personal fees from Janssen, Bavarian Nordic A/S, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Medimmune, Vir Bio[technology], Ark Bio, Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work.
“At least eight of these companies are engaged in RSV vaccine research in babies and pregnant women. Fernando has mentioned a combined RSV, flu and COVID vaccine.”
And, in relation to Polack’s relationship with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Healy reported:
“[Polack] also doesn’t mention his extensive financial involvement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This organization supports industry vaccine trials including Covid and RSV. Fernando is heavily involved through his Gates-sponsored Fundación INFANT in Buenos Aires in RSV trials and research.
“Gates sunk $82,553,834 into Novavax’s RSV vaccine ResVax which was shown to be ineffective in clinical trials in pregnant women.”
Polack’s own bio from a 2017 medical conference states “[h]is work is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Thrasher Research Fund, the Optimus Foundation and other international organizations.”
That same year, Polack testified at an FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, where he “acknowledged having financial interests in or professional relationships with some of the affected firms identified for this meeting, namely Janssen [producer of the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine], Novavax, and Bavarian Nordic.”
According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, Polack “also happens to be a consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC),” and “a current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.
$65 billion in Western ‘aid for Ukraine’ is neither aid nor is it for Ukraine
By Drago Bosnic | May 20, 2022
In recent weeks, much has been said about the political West’s (primarily US) “aid” to the embattled Kiev regime. The US Congress has so far approved or is in the process of approving at least $54 billion to Ukraine. In addition, various reports put the amount of EU “aid” at up to €10 billion thus far, although the actual number is most likely orders of magnitude greater. When put together, this pushes the publicly acknowledged figure to a staggering $65 billion, which is equivalent to Russia’s annual military spending in nominal USD exchange rates.
The number seems rather impressive and may give an outlook that Ukraine will be able to defeat Russian forces. However, the situation on the ground says otherwise. With the political West’s postindustrial economy, their ability to mass-produce affordable and easily replaceable military hardware has increasingly been called into question. Thus, most of the “aid” from the US/EU is essentially a half measure. Throwing money at a problem is highly unlikely to resolve it, as actual situations require genuine, not monetary action.
The amount of hardware Ukraine lost so far is difficult to determine, as both sides provide diametrically opposing data, while independent confirmation from the ground is virtually impossible due to ongoing military operations. However, war footage taken by civilians, alternative media embedded with frontline troops, and soldiers themselves, clearly shows that Ukraine’s losses in manpower and equipment have been massive.
To replace lost hardware, the Kiev regime will require enormous resources. However, this will be quite challenging, as the country’s Military-Industrial Complex has been virtually annihilated by Russia’s long-range strikes. Thus, the regime will need to acquire additional military hardware elsewhere. The political West is the go-to address for this purpose, as Ukraine has been getting NATO weapons for years. Still, this hardware has had a limited impact on the battlefield. To change that, NATO powers decided to ramp up the so-called “lethal aid”.
However, in reality, the prospect of Ukraine getting the promised “aid” is rather grim. An obvious question arises, what will happen to nearly $65 billion? The first go-to address for such a question should be the US Congress. With the lawmaking body trying to fast track the deal, some US congressmen have voiced concerns that corrupt officials would be able to steal the “aid”, as was the case for decades during numerous US invasions across the globe. However, corruption and embezzlement, which geopolitical expert Paul Antonopoulos recently covered in a superb analysis, is the lesser problem in this situation.
Mainstream media have been portraying the political West as if it will be sending actual, physical money to the Kiev regime. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The funds will essentially stay in the “donor” countries. The largest share of those funds will officially be allocated to arming, or rather, rearming the Kiev regime forces. But who exactly, or more precisely, which companies will be producing weapons for the Ukrainian military? It’s safe to assume we all know the answer – the US Military-Industrial Complex, the largest and most powerful arms manufacturing cartel on the planet. Household names such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, to name a few, will be getting the vast majority of those funds.
For instance, the “Phoenix Ghost” drones, manufactured by the California-based Aevex Aerospace and “Switchblade” drones, manufactured by AeroVironment, both designed to strike tanks and other armored vehicles, as well as infantry units. M113 armored vehicle is also being sent and while old, largely obsolete and not in production since 2007, it’s quite numerous, and getting rid of it will make way for the acquisition of its immediate successor, the AMPV (Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle), a turretless variant of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, produced by the BAE Systems.
Another BAE Systems product is the M777 howitzer, a towed 155 mm artillery piece designed for direct fire support. Ukrainian troops are already using them, while recent videos released by the Russian military show some have already been destroyed in battle. Interestingly, the howitzers delivered to Ukraine lack digital fire-control systems.
The much-touted “Stinger” MANPADS (produced by Raytheon) and “Javelin” ATGMs (co-produced by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon) have been sent in the thousands. However, their effectiveness has been questionable at best, despite Western media trying to portray them as supposed “game-changers”. Russian tanks have been filmed surviving up to 7 “Javelin” hits, even continuing to fight, much to the frustration of Ukrainian forces, which have recently been ordered to stop publicly complaining about the lackluster performance of Western weapons.
Raytheon’s AN/MPQ-64 “Sentinel”, an X-band range-gated, pulse-Doppler radar used to alert and cue short-range air defense systems has also been sent. In addition, 40 million rounds of small arms ammunition, 5,000 assault and battle rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns and 400 shotguns have been sent to Ukraine, along with more than 1 million grenades, mortars and 200,000 artillery rounds. These deliveries have been completed by early May. The actual number is most certainly much higher as of this writing.
The weapons in question are not changing the strategic balance between Russia and the Kiev regime, but are prolonging the fight, resulting in even higher military and civilian casualties. Also, logistics-wise, having so many different types of weapons creates a lot of problems for the Ukrainian military, which is barely holding together as it is. There are also issues of training and doctrinal incompatibility.
M777 howitzers are immobile when deployed and are designed with air dominance in mind. US troops are supposed to use them from a safe distance, serving as fire support by striking very specific targets during overseas operations, which is completely opposite to what is going on in Ukraine, where the other side (Russia) enjoys air dominance and uses massed artillery to punch holes in Ukrainian lines, followed by massive and well-coordinated armor assaults. Thus, US weapons not only fail in providing an effective counter to Russian troops, but are even getting Ukrainian forces killed, as they are still not accustomed to using them.
And last, but not least, the “aid” provided (and soon to be provided) by NATO countries are essentially long-term loans which will have to be repaid in the following decades. The WWII-era Lend-Lease program for the USSR, estimated at $160 billion in present-day USD, was repaid in full only in 2006. Thus, we can assume Ukraine will be paying off the current $65 billion “aid” for the rest of this century. That is, provided there will be a viable Ukrainian state to do so after the conflict ends.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.



