Who is India’s Anthony Fauci? The mainstream media does not even know the names of the members who sit in India’s National task force, but in this article I, Yohan Tengra, have exposed not just the names of those who are sitting in this task force, but also how they are financially connected to the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine mafia.
This task force has been responsible for the aggressive push to lockdown, mandatory mask requirements, forced testing of asymptomatics, dropping ivermectin and hcq from the national protocol, suppressing vaccine adverse events, and a lot more!
Along with the task force, I have also exposed how India’s prominent public health personalities, who regularly appear in the media and TV, like Srinath Reddy, NK Arora, VK Paul, Gagandeep Kang, Vijayraghavan, Balram Bhargava, Randeep Guleria, are connected to the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Wellcome Trust, USAID, the World Bank, and other aspects of the global deep state.
Other topics covered in this piece :
– How task force members get the science on Covid-19 totally wrong, which proves that their conflicts influence their recommendations
– India’s illegal HPV vaccine trials, ICMRs role in it, and how a similar incident repeated with the Covaxin Phase 3 trials
– How Gates foundations baby PHFI gets funding from the vaccine mafia, and holds deep influence in controlling India’s health policies
– How this research is the basis on which a legal notice has been sent to the Health Minister, calling for prosecution and removal of all the people who are exposed to have conflicts of interest
– When the accused have been confronted about conflicts of interest in the past, how have they responded?
– How the accused have lied on record about not having conflicts of interest
This piece is the culmination of my research into India’s medical deep state that I’ve been conducting since the last 2 years. Journalists reading this, who regularly bring these cast of characters on to discuss the medical aspects of the covid-19 pandemic must confront them with hard questions and facts which are explored in this article.
Disclaimer
If you are new to the arena of researching global conspiracies, and don’t understand what the New World Order/Great Reset/ Agenda 2030 Sustainable development really is, and/or don’t understand the players/forces behind it and how they work, I’d recommend you first view/read the material I’ve posted below, before proceeding with the article, so that you can get full value out of it.
1) Documentary series & articles exposing Bill Gates and his role in hijacking the public health system, among other areas: https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
2) Documentary series which explores the forces behind the New World Order (like the Rockefellers which you will see referenced below a lot), their eugenics origins and agenda of wanting to reduce the number of “inferior” people in the world, Agenda 2030 Sustainable development, the Climate Change Scam, and other related subjects : https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
9) How the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, Ford Foundation, and others were behind pushing covert eugenics operations in India, in the name of family planning and population control – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlPAL7sHU8w
Former PM Manmohan Singh with the Founding Chairperson of PHFI, Rajat Gupta
PHFI, a public private partnership started by Ex Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Rajat Gupta, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation & Srinath Reddy, has received millions of dollars of funding from pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, & dubious philanthropic organizations, which use philanthropy as a front to push hidden agendas which profit vested interests. It was started with initial funding of 65cr given by the Gates Foundation, and 65cr given by the Indian Government, along with a later grant of 35 crores.
This so called PPP has received funding over the years from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank, PATH, Diamond Jubilee Trust of the Queen of England, USAID, Wellcome Trust, Abbott, Mckinsey, Eli Lily, Glaxosmithkline, Bayer, NIH, & Google! https://phfi.org/about/financial-information/
Check under “Intimation of Quarterly Receipt of Foreign Contributions” Section
Despite receiving nearly 100 crores from taxpayer money, & having top government bureaucrats sitting on the PHFI governing board, PHFI did not submit itself to the RTI Act, 2005 for the first 6 years of its existence. When it was taken up to the Central Information Commission by a person named Kishan Lal in 2012, the CIC Chief Shailesh Gandhi ruled that it was a public authority under the RTI Act, and hence it must submit itself to the RTI act.
When Journalist Kapil Bajaj filed an RTI to know the composition of the PHFI board when it was created (2006), the President of PHFI, Srinath Reddy, actually sent him an evidently forged document, which is a punishable offense under the RTI Act. The document is dated 2006, but the designations of some of the members on the board are clearly written many years after 2006. You can find a copy of this document here :
In the year 2013-2014, PHFI lost 82 crores to a bank FD scam, which included the taxpayer money it received from the Government of India, and the organization also found itself ensnared in another controversy when a complaint was made against it to the CBI for lobbying and conflict of interest in getting one of its courses accredited from Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute. Despite having lost so much of our taxpayer money, it has still not submitted itself to a CAG audit, and did not take action against those under whos watch the funds were embezzled.
PHFI has claimed since inception that top Government bureaucrats have sat on its board, including Secretaries of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Director Generals of ICMR, and Director General of Health Services, MOHFW. However, whenever RTI’s have been sent by activists to these Government Departments, they always mention that no permission or order has been issued to allow these government servants to sit on the PHFI board.
It is not clear as to whether Government bureaucrats sitting in the PHFI board are getting paid by PHFI (RTI’s have been filed to uncover this), but the President, Srinath Reddy, who used to work in AIIMS before he became PHFI president, is reportedly drawing in a salary of 1 crore per annum from the PHFI! If it is revealed in the future that Government bureaucrats on the PHFI board are getting salaries from the funders of PHFI (i.e. pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, & fraud philanthropists like Gates, Rockefellers,etc) then that would amount to a serious conflict of interest of such government representatives.
PHFI was mainly created with the motive to start public health universities in India, create a public health cadre in India, and suggest health related policies to the Government. PHFI has created many Indian Institutes of Public Health (IIPH’s) all over the country. Land from many states has been allotted to PHFI and grants from various state governments have also been given, but after PHFI lost so much money to the FD scam, it has not been able to build many of the universities that it was originally supposed to, and a lot of its universities are currently running on rented premises.
Many government members as well as heads of billionaire business houses, fake philanthropic bodies & pharmaceutical companies have sat on the PHFI Governing Body in the past, and some continue to sit on the Governing body of PHFI. Those who are sitting in the PHFI board as of March 2020 have been highlighted below in bold letters. Members who are sitting on the PHFI Governing Body as well as Executive committee for the year ending March 2021 have still not been published on the website, despite many months having passed. List of members is referenced below:
– K Srinath Reddy (President of PHFI since 2006)
– S Ramadorai (Former Vice Chairman ,TCS )
– Mr Lav Agarwal, Joint Secretary of MOHFW
– JVR Prasada Rao (UN Secretary General Special Envoy for AIDS)
– Balram Bhargava (DG – ICMR)
– Prof Dr. Sunil Kumar (DGHS, MOHFW)
– David Fleming (Ex Director of Global Health Strategies at the Gates Foundation)
– Rajat Gupta (Former Partner, Mckinsey & Co., sat on the boards of Gates Foundation & Rockefeller Foundation in the past)
– Dr Sanjay Tyagi (Ex Director General of Health Services, MOHFW)
– Dr. Soumya Swaminathan (Ex Director General, ICMR)
– Prof K Vijayraghavan (Ex Secretary, Department of Biotechnology)
– Prasanna Hota (Ex Secretary MOHFW)
– Nirmal Ganguly (Ex DG, ICMR)
– Ranjit Pandit (Ex Senior Director, Mckinsey)
– K Sujatha Rao (Former Secretary, MOHFW)
– RK Srivastava (Ex DGHS, MOHFW)
– Y Venugopal Reddy (Former Governor of RBI)
– Vishwa Katoch (Ex Director General ICMR)
– TKA Nair (Former Advisor to PMO)
– RA Mashelkar (Chairman Reliance Innovation Council, CSIR Chief)
– Rati Godrej (Industrialist)
– Mr KRS Jamwal (Executive Director of TATA Industries)
– Harpal Singh (Fortis)
– Uday Khemka (SUN Group)
– Amartya Sen (Married into the Rothschild Family)
– Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwallia (Former Deputy Chair of Planning Commission)
– Timothy Evans (Ex Director for Health, Nutrition, & Population, World Bank)
– Shiv Nadar (HCL)
– Mr Bhanu Pratap Sharma (Ex Secretary, MOHFW)
– Dr Jagdish Prasad (Ex DGHS, MOHFW)
– Ashok Alexander (Former Director BMGF)
– Narayan Murthy (Infosys, member of Gates’ Giving Pledge)
– Rohini Nilekani (Member of Gates’ Giving Pledge, partner with Gates & Rockefeller Foundation in many projects)
– A K Shivakumar (UNICEF)
– Gary Darmstatd (Ex Director of Gates Foundation)
– Anand Mahindra (Mahindra Group)
– Mukesh Ambani (Reliance)
– Prashant Vasu (Mckinsey)
– David Lynn (Director, Wellcome Trust)
– Mr Gautam Kumra (Director at Mckinsey)
– PK Pradhan (Ex secretary MOHFW)
2) Founding Board Member of IHME (Institute of Health Metrics & Evaluation), alongside Tedros Ghebreyesus(IHME – an organization to which the Gates Foundation gave a massive founding grant, and huge subsequent funding) http://www.healthdata.org/about/IHME-founding-board-members
15) His father was a politician from the Congress Party
Subhash Salunke, Director of IIPH Bhubhaneshwar (Indian Institute of Public Health started by PHFI) and Senior Advisor, PHFI
1) Technical COVID Support to Government of Odisha
2) Technical support to Government of Maharashtra
3) The technical team at the Indian Institute of Public Health, Bhubaneswar is assisting efforts of the Government of Odisha
Prof Sanjay Zodpey, Director of IIPH Delhi
1) Prof. Sanjay Zodpey, is a part of the National Task Force for COVID-19 at ICMR of the Epidemiology and Surveillance research group. 2) He is the Technical Advisor for COVID-19 related activities for Nagpur Division. He is suggesting appropriate measures to be taken to contain the pandemic in the Division.
3) He is a member of the working group which is working on execution of specific tasks related to population based studies and prophylaxis studies to generate evidences of AYUSH interventions in dealing with the COVID 19 crisis, which will be initiated by Ministry of AYUSH and will be implemented by RCs, academic institutes and other partners in different parts of the country.
Prof GVS Murthy, Director of IIPH Hyderabad
1) Technical Support to the Government of Telangana
Dr Jayaram, Registrar at IIPH Hyderabad
1) Technical Support to the Government of Telangana. The technical team at the Indian Institute of Public Health, Hyderabad is assisting efforts of the Government of Odisha. The students are activitely engaged and have been recruited as epidemiologists at the district level.
Dr. Dileep Malavankar, Director of IIPH Gujarat
1) The technical team at IIPHG led by Dr Dileep Mavalankar is supporting efforts of the Government of Gujarat.
Dr Sandra Albert, Director of IIPH Shillong
1) Member of the Working group on Epidemiology Survey and Documentation constituted by the Interdisciplinary AYUSH Research and Development Task Force on Covid-19. Notification No. A.17020/1/2020-E.1 of Ministry of AYUSH
2) Prof Sandra Albert is a member of the State Level Medical Expert Committee constituted by the Government of Meghalaya
3) Technical team members at IIPH Shillong Dr Rajiv Sarkar, Badondor Shylla and Uniqueky Mawrie are members of the technical support group of the State response team for COVID-19, Government of Meghalaya.
Dr Giridhara Babu, Head – Life Course Epidemiology, PHFI, IIPH – Bangalore Campus
1) Member, Lancet Covid -19 Commission India Task Force
2) Member Karnataka State Government State Vision Group
3) Co-Chair, BBMP Task force on COVID-19 Public Health Response, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru.
4) National level: Member of Epidemiology, Surveillance, & Research group constituted by ICMR National Task Force for COVID-I9
5) Member, Karnataka State Government Technial Analysis Committe: COVID19
6) Member, Karnataka State Government Expert Committee for COVID19
7) Member, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Expert Committee for COVID19
8) Consultation to state Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab & Telengana
Many years ago, a parliamentary standing committee in India produced a scathing report regarding illegal trials which were conducted by the NGO PATH, that were funded by the Gates Foundation. There were serious lapses in the trial which amounted to a gross violation of the human rights of the subjects involved.
Back then, it accused the ICMR of gross misconduct and conflict of interest. Here is an excerpt from the report :
“It was unwise on the part of ICMR to go in the PPP mode with PATH, as such an involvement gives rise to grave Conflict of Interest. The Committee takes a serious view of the role of ICMR in the entire episode and is constrained to observe that ICMR should have been more responsible in the matter. The Committee strongly recommends that the Ministry may review the activities of ICMR functionaries involved in PATH project.
The Committee from its examination has found that DHR/ICMR have completely failed to perform their mandated role and responsibility as the apex body for medical research in the Country. Rather, in their over-enthusiasm to act as a willing facilitator to the machinations of PATH they have even transgressed into the domain of other bodies/ agencies which deserves the strongest condemnation and strictest action against them”
Years later, today PATH and the Gates Foundation are still freely operating in the country, and going around funding various public and private projects. No action was taken against the ICMR employees who got into a PPP with PATH, as recommended by the standing committee.
What the standing committee failed to notice at the time is that the ICMR and other Government departments, got into a so called PPP with the pharmaceutical companies, industrialists & fraudulent philanthropic organizations that use philanthrophy as a front to push their hidden agendas. This arrangement is known as PHFI.
Back then, the conflict of interest of ICMR was only limited to the trials that were being conducted. Today, the conflict of interest of the ICMR is enormous, as ICMR Director Balaram Bhargava, and past Directors such as Soumya Swaminathan and Vishwa Mohan Katoch sat on the board of PHFI along with leaders from pharmaceutical companies, the Gates Foundation, industrialists, etc. On behalf of these vested interests, the ICMR is controlling the entire response to the Covid-19 pandemic today, as it setup the task force which directly recommends the Central Government about what measures to take in response to the pandemic.
This issue has come up in the past as well, and was reported in the Indian mainstream media. You can read up on that here :
The ICMR also got into a deal with Bharat Biotech, and gets 5% royalty on the sale of the vaccine. The ICMR has inked other deals along with the Gates Foundation as well. These conflicts of interest need to be cut-off, as they are not just influencing the outcome of a clinical trial, but the fine detail of all 135 crore peoples lives today! ICMR guidelines are followed like a religious book all over our country today.
Years later, it seems like history repeats! This time with the phase 3 trial of Covaxin in Bhopal.
Multiple news reports have also highlighted the irregularities in the clinical trial phase of the Covaxin in India, particularly in Bhopal. In an article titled “India’s COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants Claim They Were Misled” published on an online portal IndiaSpend
on 12.02.2021, it is reported that individuals were lured to participate in the trial after paying Rs. 750. Death of one person who took the vaccine was also reported. The persons who took the vaccine said that they were not informed that they were part of the clinical trial. The report states asunder:
“A truck came to this locality in December and announced
on a loudspeaker that anyone who wanted the COVID-19
vaccine and wanted Rs 750 for taking the vaccine, could
go to the nearby People’s University Hospital and take it.
I needed the money,” said Parihar. Nearly a dozen people
interviewed by IndiaSpend in Gareeb Nagar and Oriya
Basti in north Bhopal recounted this same sequence of
events.”
“After reports of irregularities in the trials, this reporter
visited Bhopal to investigate the allegations made by
people living in low-income areas of the city. Many said
they did not know they were part of a clinical trial and
instead believed they had been given the actual COVID-
19 vaccine. For most, the money was the reason they had
agreed to take the jab. Many of them said they were
illiterate and could not read the forms they had signed. Residents also alleged that they had not been informed
about the potential side-effects, or that they could be
compensated for serious fallouts such as death or
disability. Although Bharat Biotech has issued a press
statement claiming that all reported adverse events have
been duly recorded, many in the trial did not have mobile
phones on which their health conditions could be inquired
about. They said they had not been contacted by any
other means, either.”
It seems like ICMR has a habit of working with parties that love to break the rules of clinical trials in India and hence violate the rights of the participants who are involved. The parliamentary committee called for strict action against ICMR more than a decade ago, and since no action was taken then, this incident has repeated today. When will justice be served?
Famous Names in India’s Public Health Space
There are other people who are not directly working for PHFI, and don’t sit in the main ICMR Covid-19 task force either, but are influencing Government policies & media messaging on Covid 19 in a big way, and are connected to Bill Gates, Rockefeller Foundation, vaccine & pharmaceutical companies, etc. These include :
1) Dr. Narendra Kumar Arora
– Teaching Faculty at PHFI since 2014
– Member of National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization
– Chairperson, Operational Research Group of National Covid-19 Task Force
– Chairperson of Scientific Advisory Committee of qHPV program between India’s Dept of Biotechnology & Gates Foundation
– WHO Strategic Group Member
– Part of SAGE Group
– Adviser to Bill Gates’ Projects on Immunization
– Member, GACVS
– Adviser to National AEFI Committee in 2017
– Chairperson of National AEFI Committee from 2008-2017
– Member of Scientific Advisory Board, ICMR (2007)
– Rockefeller INCLEN fellowship, 1993
– Contributor to WHO’s Covid19 Vaccine Safety Surveillance Manual
– Conducted a panel discussion with Dr. Santosh Matthew, Country lead for Public Policy and Finance at the Gates Foundation India https://ciihive.in/Flyer/PUBHEALTH2.pdf
ITSU was Setup by PHFI in 2012 by a 6.9 million $ grant from Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation had funded an activity called ‘evidence to policy’ at the Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU), which in turn acted as secretariat of another key body called the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI). This was a crucial panel that examines scientific evidence on the effectiveness of new vaccines and recommends their inclusion in the national vaccination programmes.
The Senior Management Team of the ITSU’s key areas of focus consist of the AEFI Secretariat, Implementation of India’s Immunization Program, & the Communications Strategy of the Covid-19 Vaccine Communication Program. Other Partners in deciding the communication strategy of the Covid-19 vaccine program include UNICEF & the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The funding of the BMGF to the ITSU Secretariat was withdrawn after controversy over influence of vaccine manufacturers in India’s Universal Immunization Programme, but funding to other parts of the ITSU by the BMGF still continues, according to WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan.
PHFI’s FCRA license was also removed by the Ministry of Home Affairs for sometime due to various reasons, including misappropriation of funds, not disclosing FDs, remitting funds abroad, etc.
After this, then PHFI Chairman Narayan Murthy wrote a letter to the PM, Narendra Modi, asking him to restore PHFI’s license as the withdrawal was putting many of the public health programs which PHFI started at risk. Interesting thing to note is that in the article where Murthy’s letter is referenced, the author also reports that the license was cancelled based on input from Intelligence Bureau.
“The Union health ministry is also said to have taken up the matter with Gauba. His predecessor, Rajiv Mehrishi, who was part of the decision to crack down on PHFI, had refused a review after both the Intelligence Bureau and the foreigners division of the home ministry said they had made a watertight case against PHFI. Intelligence Bureau officers said they would not buckle under pressure, for the charges hold ground.“
In his letter, Murthy reminds Narendra Modi of his early support to PHFI : “With the generous support extended by you as the chief minister of Gujarat in 2007, PHFI established the Indian Institute of Public Health-Gandhinagar, aided by the land and financial assistance provided by the Gujarat government. With your blessings, we have now set up a permanent campus at Gandhinagar next to IIT-Gandhinagar. This beautiful campus on the banks of Sabarmati was inaugurated by Gujarat Chief Minister Vijaybhai Rupani in 2016 at the site chosen by you for the bhoomi pooja.”
Srinath Reddy, the President of PHFI had also written to Modi on June 30 2017, calling himself a “foot solider” who was appealing to “his commander in chief to save him from the friendly fire which is misdirected”. “We request you to protect PHFI as it is gravely endangered, and guide it in its future journey with your clear directions,” he wrote. “We were hoping the matter will be resolved soon, especially since the Union health minister and health secretary conveyed their trust and support for the relevance and values of PHFI’s work in public health.”
Also during this period, a journalist interviewed Gates Foundation India’s Director Nachiket Mor. When he was asked to clarify allegations surrounding Gates Foundations role in influencing India’s Immunization Programme, he said :
“The question to ask whoever is making these allegations is, why is there so much insecurity about your own competence? Ultimately, Indians are taking decisions in India’s best interests. If anybody alleges that they are acting under the influence of foreigners, I’d ask them to take a good look in the mirror. Consider some of the people driving these decisions in India. Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Dr. MK Bhan, Dr. Vijayaraghavan — these are fantastic people. By making such an allegation, you are saying you don’t think these people are competent.”
So basically he wants us to think that the scientists who are being funded by or have great relations with the Gates foundation, are fantastic people! And if we doubt them, then we are doubting our own competence – that will be a cruel joke to you if you make it to the end of this article. After the above taking place, the license was restored later with the rider that PHFI would have to take prior approval from the ministry before receiving funds, among other checks.
Members of Senior Management Team of ITSU include :
1) Pritu Dhalaria , Director of ITSU. Ex Director of PATH’s Immunization Portfolio, Ex-Member of NTAGI, worked at PATH, WHO & Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the past.
2) Apurva Rastogi, Project Manager at ITSU, Ex Researcher at PHFI
3) Kishore Kumar Bajaj, Senior Operations Manager at ITSU. Has worked at PHFI & PATH in the past.
4) Dr. GK Soni , Team Lead of program implementation at ITSU. Has worked at PHFI in the past
According to PHFI’s own website :
Improving Immunisation Coverage rate among children
Through Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU), PHFI is helping MoHFW in the expansion of immunisation coverage, improvement of quality, and introduction of new vaccines. PHFI has extended support to ‘Mission Indradhanush’ for targeted increase from 65% to 90% rate of coverage of full immunization among children.
Everything to do with the adverse events of the Covid-19 vaccines is handled by the ITSU, right from the drafting of the guidelines which decide which death will be considered to be caused by a vaccine and which will not, to coordinating between various AEFI committees, collecting and organizing data for the groups, etc. Talk about conflict of interest? https://itsu.org.in/aefi/
After the PHFI & Gates Foundation controversy resulted in Gates foundations direct funding of ITSU’s secretariat being withdrawn, the scientists who have been referenced in this report that have grave conflicts of interest were quick to give statements in the media covering up for the vaccine industry.
Excerpt from the article :
“Conflict of interest generally refers to when someone participating in a decision-making process seeks to have a decision made that enhances their best interests in some way, usually a financial benefit,” says K. Vijayraghavan, scientist and secretary, Department of Biotechnology, health ministry.
“At the NTAGI subcommittee, we ask all members to declare their conflicts of interest and this is done. The policy we follow is similar to that of WHO.”
The Big Money, Big Pharma, Big Corruption plot just doesn’t work, adds Dr Soumya Swaminathan, secretary, Department of Health Research, health ministry.
To begin with, the NTAGI is not a ‘body’, but a committee of some of the best scientists, public health experts and civil servants in the country, who take decisions in their independent capacity.
The BMGF may have “big money”, but it is not represented in the NTAGI. And as the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world, India itself is ‘big pharma’. “If our strategy can be influenced, what does it say about our expertise, intelligence or integrity?” asks Dr Soumya.
And, Gates, as an international donor, is key in fulfilling that requirement. “Conspiracy theories, without any evidence, can greatly harm the immunisation programme,” adds Dr K. Srinath Reddy, president of the Public Health Foundation of India in Delhi.
Journalist Kapil Bajaj had sent a list of questions to Ex PHFI Chairman, Narayan Murthy, one of them was regarding how PHFI intends to resolve the conflicts of interest which exist within its governing body. This was Narayan Murthy’s response :
” I do not see any conflict of interest. This institution is about training, research and policy to improve public health delivery in India. The institution has highly-respected and accomplished people to guide it to achieve its objectives. The individuals on the board have demonstrated leadership in excellence. Some have expertise in public health delivery, some have managed non-profits, some have been excellent academicians, some have been top quality government bureaucrats, and, in addition, some have contributed to the endowment for the institution. These people spend their precious time to make this institution a world-class institution. The students who pass out from this institution can join any institution they like and there is no way they will be influenced to join any company founded or financed by any of the board members. For example, just because I am the chairman of IIITB, no student from there was ever influenced by me to join Infosys. Similarly, all over the world, high quality educational institutions invite well-known people to be on their board to leverage their expertise. On the issue of policy research, this institute only recommends policies and it is for the governments to accept or reject it. Further, I have been involved in lots of policy making bodies in my field in India and never once have I put the interest of my company ahead of the country. “
– Part of Union Govts Core Team for Covid 19 Pandemic Response.
– Chairs Empowered Group on Medical Infrastructure & Covid Management Plan
– Chairs National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for Covid-19
– Reports to PM Modi directly
– Worked as Member of High Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage, setup by Planning Commission & funded by Rockefeller Foundation, under the chairmanship of PHFI President Srinath Reddy. This would lay the groundwork for what eventually became the Ayushman Bharat Scheme. (http://uhc-india.org/reports/executive_summary.pdf)
– Board Member of the Partnership for Maternal, New born & childhood health, who’s funders and other board members include the Gates Foundation, USAID, World Bank, WHO,Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson&Johnson, GAVI https://pmnch.who.int/about-pmnch
– Expressed full support for behavior change campaign started by Gates Foundation focused on mask wearing by all & social distancing. The mask-wearing campaign is designed by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in partnership with McCann Worldgroup. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1634328
– Balram Bhargava started the School of International Biodesign, with the help of Stanford Uni and IIT. According to him : ““We have had funding from various agencies, including national governments and international agencies, the Gates Foundation, the Grand Challenges Canada and the Pfizer Foundation, not to mention private investment from angel investors and others” https://news.rcpsg.ac.uk/engagement/professor-balram-bhargava-awarded-the-presidents-medal/
– Sits on the Board of the International vaccine institute https://www.ivi.int/who-we-are/leadership/board-of-trustees/ which accelerates vaccine research and development worldwide, and is funded by the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, CEPI, etc.”
– Used to be Co-chair of the India AIDS Initiative that was started by the Gates Foundation, along with fellow co-chair Rajat Gupta, and Director of Gates Foundation India, Ashok Alexander. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2003/10/india-aids-initiative India AIDS Initiative (aka Avahan) was funded to the tune of 200 million dollars over the years!
– Secretary of Health and Family welfare from 2002-2004
– Member of Transitional Working Group, which decided the Operational Mechanism for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS TB & Malaria, who’s chairman used to be fraud Rajat Gupta, & the body itself was started by a donor grant from Bill Gates.
– Gave the Welcome Note at Kerala Health – Making SDG a reality conference, who’s partners inclued World Bank and the WHO. https://keralahealthconference.in/
– Part of the NGO PATH’s webinar on Covid 19 testing in India (the same NGO that conducted illegal vaccine trials in India in the past and still no action has been taken against it https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NMMJnj6CTcKGfAEro0HfkQ
– Dr. Murhekar also worked with the World Health Organization (WHO) Western Pacific Regional Office as a consultant and professional staff member in Papua New Guinea and the Philippines.
– Part of the NGO PATH’s webinar on Covid 19 testing in India (the same NGO that conducted illegal vaccine trials in India in the past and still no action has been taken against it) https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NMMJnj6CTcKGfAEro0HfkQ
21) Dr Subhash Salunke
– Senior Adviser to the President of PHFI
– His 30 years’ experience in the Public Health Department spans from Position of Deputy Director to Director General in the Health Services of Maharashtra State
– His stint with the WHO SEARO spanned from being Regional Advisor in 2005 to Assistant Regional Director in 2009, including three years as WHO-Representative to Indonesia
– He was actively involved in formulating projects like “Health System Development” for Maharashtra State that was supported by the World Bank.
– He has shown leadership in designing the HIV/AIDS Control special programme (AVERT) with the assistance of USAID for Maharashtra State
– He was the recipient of an NIH Fogarty fellowship for his PhD in epidemiology under the AIDS International Training and Research Program at the University of California Los Angeles from 2004-2011. https://www.tephinet.org/tarun-bhatnagar
– Contributes as a member of the national team developing Standard Treatment Workflows for the National Healthcare Program AB-PMJAY (background to which is referenced earlier)
Many of the members listed above, lied about not having any conflict of interest in the NTAGI committee meeting
NTAGI (National Technical advisory Group on Immunization) is the expert group in India which approves vaccines that eventually make their way into India’s vaccine schedule. This group is also convening on the Covid-19 vaccines and going through data on their efficacy as well as adverse events.
That in a letter dated 20.01.2021 the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of Government of India Immunization Division regarding Minutes of the meeting National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) held on 10th December, 2020 had mentioned about declaration by members regarding their conflict of interest.
It reads thus; “All participating NTAGI members and invited attendees had duly filled and signed the confidentially agreement, and declared conflict of interest (if any), and shared these with the NTAGI Secretariat. No conflict of interest was noted.”
The falsity of above declaration is clear from the very fact that the following members are having conflict of interest:
1. Dr. Sunil Kumar Director General of Health Service
2. Dr. Gagandeep Kang Professor, CMC Vellore
3. Dr. K. Srinath Reddy President, Public Health Foundation of India 4. Dr. Samiran Panda Scientist ‘G’ ICMR, New Delhi
5. Dr. Nivedita Gupta Scientist ‘F’ ICMR, New Delhi
6. Dr. N. K. Arora Chair COVID – 19 Working Group, Executive Director, INCLEN International
7. Dr. Balram Bhargava Secretary, Department on Health Research & DG-ICMR
Given all of this, how can the ICMR be involved in the task force, or setting up of the task force? It has a past of colluding with PATH and present of inking many deals with the Gates foundation. Many of ICMRs researchers and scientists are getting funding from the pharmaceutical companies and international “philanthropic” bodies.
ICMR is also involved in funding the trials of both Covaxin as well as Covishield. The ICMR, previously in reply to an RTI query from a news magazine, said the estimated cost incurred by ICMR towards development of Covaxin was `35 crore. However, sources said the figure put out by ICMR was a conservative estimate and the actual cost – when calculated properly in terms of NIV’s human resources, intellectual investment, time and establishment costs – would be much more. It gets 5% percent royaltiesfrom the sale of Bharat Biotech vaccines.
Journalists have been trying to uncover what has been going on inside the task force. Some have tried to pin blame or put responsibility on its members for the decisions taken by the Modi Government, or the lackthereof, but because they could not manage to find the list of the task force members, they could not pin individual responsibility on anyone. However now you, the reader, can go through these articles, and then put them into context with everything that we’ve discussed above. Important excerpts from these articles are highlighted below: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/coronavirus-transmission-covid-19-task-force-national-lockdown-7298468/
“Some members of the Covid-19 task force, a technical expert body that advises the Central Government, are “pushing hard” for a national lockdown, The Sunday Express has learnt. The task force includes experts from premier health institutions, including AIIMS and ICMR, and has met many times during the recent surge. The deliberations of these experts are of significance since the chairperson of the task force, V K Paul, reports to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”
“The Covid-19 task force is trying to say this very aggressively for the last few weeks. That we should tell the people at the top that we should have a lockdown,” a member said. “A nationwide lockdown rather than what we are doing now, in bits and pieces across states, because of the simple fact that it is spreading all over,” a member said.”
“The fact that India does not know the names of the 21 members of its National Task Force for COVID-19 is emblematic of the colossal failure of both the task force—whose only job seems to be to endorse the decisions of its political masters—and the government to prepare for or take steps to mitigate the inevitable second wave of the pandemic. Should such a task force not be taken to task for its laxity and negligence?”
“WHO is the Indian equivalent of Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the President of the United States? One would be hard-pressed to answer this question.”
“In keeping with the government’s penchant for not sharing information, the names of the other members of the NTF have not been made public. If at all there is any government body, if not an individual like Fauci, to advise the government on the pandemic, it would be the NTF.”
“Right from the beginning of the pandemic, the NTF has been found grossly wanting in discharging its responsibilities with the scientific integrity required of such a panel. That the higher executive arm of the government wanted it to say only the things it wanted to hear became clear in March 2020 when the government announced the countrywide lockdown. It was done without consulting the NTF even as its members apparently held contrary views given that at that time the caseload in India was only around 500 and a more calibrated region-wise response based on epidemiological data would have been more prudent, but none of them spoke out. The NTF’s silence on the matter would imply that it implicitly endorsed the decision.”
“The NTF’s scientific integrity was also called into question when it did not voice dissent over the unethical Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) given to Covaxin in January in the so-called “clinical trial mode” even as the Phase 3 trials of the vaccine were ongoing and there was not even interim data on its efficacy. And after the vaccine campaign got under way in January, the NTF also does not seem to have advised the Health Ministry to be transparent with regard to the data on adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) or implications thereof on the ongoing vaccination drive.”
“What is highly at once surprising and disconcerting is the fact that, as The Caravan magazine has revealed, even as a second wave loomed large and as the number of cases was surging, the NTF did not meet at all in February or March.”
“However, the Health Ministry’s document, on which all treatment protocols in hospitals across the country are based, was not updated until April 2021. If only the NTF had ensured that an updated document was sent out early on, all the chaos, clamour and the mad scramble for remdesivir, the smuggling, hoarding and black-marketing of the drug and the all-round desperation of hospitals and hospitalised patients could have been prevented. Belatedly, on April 21, three doctors, including Randeep Guleria, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, had to clarify that remdesivir had very limited therapeutic potential for patients. Only after this, on April 22, did the Health Ministry update its treatment protocol, which now (“based on limited evidence”) advises use of remdesivir in special circumstances in moderate to severe cases (requiring supplementary oxygen) within 10 days of onset of symptoms.”
How Members with Conflict of Interest also get the Science Wrong
One might be innocent enough to think that these ties which the above listed members have wouldn’t interfere with their decisions and recommendations on public health matters, assuming that the members would have the integrity to put people over money and influence. But such people would be terribly wrong in making such assumptions, as can be seen by the outlandish and scientifically incorrect positions taken by many task force members in the public.
After 1.5 years of the pandemic having passed, these facts have been clearly established :
– Lockdowns are not effective, and have many negative consequences
– Asymptomatic people don’t spread disease
– Natural immunity is many times better than vaccine-conferred immunity
– Vaccinations won’t end the pandemic or prevent future waves, as many countries that have reached over 80 percent vaccination rates are continuing to go for more lockdowns/restrictions and boosters.
– The Covid-19 vaccines are not safe as many serious adverse events and deaths have taken place post- vaccination, and their efficacy is based on weak evidence.
– Masks are not effective in stopping virus transmission, and have many negative health consequences.
– The RT-PCR and RAT tests have a high rate of false positives, and the RT-PCR test is not the Gold Standard for diagnosing infectious diseases.
– India has reached herd immunity and can go back to normal, as the last nationwide sero-survey has showed that around 70% people have developed antibodies either after natural infection, or vaccination.
– Effective and safe prevention options as well as cures exist for Covid-19, like Vitamin D, 3 step flu diet, Ivermectin, HCQ+Zinc, MATH+ Protocol, etc.
Now lets see how most of our fellow task force members and other “experts” go against these facts, and continue to promote the agenda of vested interests and the pharmaceutical companies.
Legal Notice Sent to Our Health Minister, Mansukh Mandaviya
Based on the above evidence, and other scientific research that we have been collecting, Advocate Nilesh Ojha & Dipali Ojha, who head the Indian Bar Association, have sent a legal notice to our health minister, asking him to remove all the members who have conflict of interest from the Covid-19 task force, and all other bodies which influence policy making in the health space in India. He has also asked for prosecution of those who have these conflicts, under various sections of the IPC & Indian Law. If no action is taken on this legal notice, Adv. Nilesh Ojha will file a case in the Supreme Court.
The capture of our pubic health agencies by fake philanthropists like Bill Gates, the Rockefellers & their frontmen, and the pharmaceutical/vaccine mafia started in India along time ago, in the year 2006. Since then, incidents like illegal HPV vaccine trial coming to light have put pressure on the perpetrators of the crimes (namely PATH and the Gates Foundation), but due to their tremendous infiltration and capture by these forces of the mainstream media, public health “experts”, government bureaucrats, etc the criminals are still able to conduct themselves in India without any barriers.
It is time to make these task force members and celebrity scientists feel the heat for all their decisions and recommendations that have destroyed the lives of millions of people, pushed millions into abject poverty, and decimated the fundamental right to travel, operate a business, speak freely, breathe & bodily autonomy of all Indians! Tag them personally on twitter, highlight each connection that is made here to the public, send legal notices, file court cases, etc. If you encounter them in person, record a video of them and confront them with these questions. Do whatever is necessary to make this plandemic end, as all the evidence to make it end has been provided to you in this document.
The Covid-19 plandemic is a well planned orchestrated medical fraud, executed by the same vested interests referenced in detail in this article, to usher in a technocratic orwellian global dictatorship, which will be accompanied by a resource grab executed by the elites. As Klaus Schwab, CEO of the World Economic Forum says : “You will own nothing, and you will be happy”. This criminal capture and sabotage of our public health agencies is what has enabled this, as the mafia wants to push mandatory testing, masks, vaccines and lockdowns on the world in order to pursue their New World Order/ Great Reset Agenda, and since they control almost everyone in key positions of power (as shown above), they have been able to do so very easily.
But now that all of this has been put in one place for you, you and Indians at large are hopefully able to see the puppeteering behind the scenes, atleast in the public health sector. Its high time we have throw out and imprison all these corrupt hijacked officials who are putting our health and livelihoods in grave danger, on behalf of the puppet masters who pull their strings. It is time to choose, between freedom or fascism, and act on the facts that we have learnt in this expose, so that we can stop the globalists from achieving their end goal, and are able to cement our goal forever – freedom and respect for the inalienable god given and constitutionally protected rights of every human being.
Well, here we go again. The Israelis, in collusion with no less than 420 criminals in the US Congress, have again ripped off the US taxpayer. I stop short of calling the congresscritters “traitors” because the US Constitution, which defines the word, requires that one actually be cooperating with a declared enemy of the United States to be so described. Israel is not yet an enemy as defined by a declaration of war from that same Congress, which is instead intent on showering our goods and even our freedoms on the Jewish state. Indeed, Israel has so corrupted our political system that it receives far more in benefits from the federal treasury than does any American state. And it is all done with a wink and a nod from the Jewish dominated media and through the agency of a grossly disproportionate number of Zionist Jews in high office and government aided and abetted by a host of pigshit ignorant Christian Zionists who are incapable of seeing or understanding what is best for their own country.
To be sure, many of those in Congress who pander to Israel as a top priority are not Jewish. But they know that that the Jewish state can be a harsh master if they deviate in any way from providing their enthusiastic support for the Greater Zionist project outlined in the Yinon Plan of 1982. This has led to America’s own interests being sacrificed and a continuous cash flow of many billions of dollars from Washington to Jerusalem, even though Israel is one of the ten wealthiest countries in the world per capita and its citizens enjoy free top level medical and educational benefits that many Americans cannot afford.
This is what happened last week, revealing yet again the US government’s total subjugation by Israel: Congress was preparing to vote on a multi-billion stopgap bill to pay for continuing government functions through December since a comprehensive budget has not yet been agreed to. Democratic Party friends of Israel had inserted an amendment into the bill only days before, consisting of a $1 billion gift to Israel so it could rearm its Iron Dome defense system, which ran low on missiles during the recent “Operation Guardian of the Walls” slaughter of Gazans, as well as for the purchase of other munitions. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama defended the arrangement, saying “Importantly, our legislation includes funding for the Iron Dome, making good on our commitment to a historic and significant ally.” He explained that the money would “bolster Israel’s defense capacity and protect against Hamas attacks.”
Hamas attacks? Inserting freebies for Israel in such a fashion is routine in Congress as it allows money to flow without any debate or context, but this time there was a problem. A number of Democratic Party progressives in Congress objected and made an issue of it, in part because procedurally the move was an obvious attempt to hide what was being done, so the amendment was withdrawn. The Israel friendly media, tv talking heads from both parties, and leading congressmen all immediately went to bat for poor little defenseless Israel and a new bill was quickly drafted up to give the Jewish state the money without delay. Representative Josh Gottheimer complained in a tweet how “The Iron Dome protects innocent civilians in Israel from terrorist attacks and some of my colleagues have now blocked funding it. We must stand by our historic ally – the only democracy in the Middle East.”
One might suggest that Gottheimer go to live in Israel as he appears to like it so much and he might well fact-check his comment. It is not possible to be an apartheid state and occupying power as well as a nation where only one religion constitutes full citizenship if one aspires to be a democracy.
In spite of continued objections by “the squad” progressives, including this by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, daughter of Palestinian immigrant parents, who said “I will not support an effort to enable and support war crimes, human rights abuses and violence. The Israeli government is an apartheid regime,” the new bill passed by 420 votes to 9. It did not mention that Israel had previously used its US-provided weapons to kill more than 250 Palestinian civilians, including 60 children. The nine brave Congressmen, who will now be targeted for non-re-election by Israel and all its friends, consisted of Thomas Massie (R-KY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN.), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), André Carson (D-IN), Marie Newman (D-IL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Cori Bush (D-MO) and Chuy Garcia (D-IL). Massie was the only Republican, who tweeted that “Foreign aid is the result of foreign influence exerted on US politicians at home.”
It is interesting to note some of the media comments that surfaced supportive of giving the Israelis another billion dollars on top of the $11 billion or so it already gets annually in direct military assistance, trade agreements and support for its illegal settlements coming from fake charities. The conservative Washington Timesdescribed Iron Dome, somewhat bizarrely, as “relied on against Islamist efforts to kill its [Israel’s] civilians.” A New York Daily Newseditorial last Thursday reads in part “A small claque of far-left House Democrats thought on Tuesday that they had torpedoed a $1 billion replenishment for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system by threatening to vote down a larger package, forcing the Israeli assistance to be stripped out of it. On Thursday it all backfired, when 210 Democrats joined with 210 Republicans to approve the money in a brand new, standalone bill, the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022. Exposed and alone, no shield to protect them, just eight Dems voted no, along with an always cantankerous Republican… So that’s the vote, on the record: almost unanimous support in the House for the Jewish state’s right to defend itself from Hamas and Hezbollah rockets.”
Bret Stephens, over at the New York Times, has this to say about anyone who would dare oppose funding Israel’s war machine: “It would behoove Democrats in the honorable majority to start treating their Israel-hating members not as parliamentary nuisances or social media embarrassments but as the ill-intended bigots they well and truly are.” Sure Bret, it all comes down to anti-Semitism, like always, doesn’t it? Bret is of course Jewish and reliably Zionist. He lived in Israel where he was editor of the Jerusalem Post.
The Republicans inevitably had accused the Democrats of having gone wobbly on Israel, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeting “While Dems capitulate to the antisemitic influence of their radical members, Republicans will always stand with Israel.” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik also tweeted that Democrats “do NOT support Israel. Instead they choose to side with the Hamas Caucus wing of their Party.”
Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, provided pushback as she enthused after the vote: “This bill demonstrates Congress’s commitment to our friend and ally Israel is bipartisan and ironclad.” What she should have said was the Israel’s grip on the US Congress and theft of taxpayer money is shameful, but somehow she must have misspoke. And the Daily News piece is, of course, bullshit unless one actually believes that snipers shooting children and warplanes blowing up apartment buildings is defense against home-made rockets and balloons.
And there was also plenty going on behind the scenes between Capitol Hill and Jerusalem. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, possibly the most rabidly pro-Israel partisan in Congress, said “There are some few that won’t support [the new bill], but the overwhelming majority of this Congress — not in a partisan way but in an American way — will support defending the Democratic state of Israel.”
Hoyer seems to be saying that all good Americans must support Israel. He should know as he was negotiating with the Israelis on the deal to bring about a quick vote to approve the Iron Dome funding. His maneuvering was in response to Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, who had watched developments in Washington with alarm and telephoned Hoyer who, in turn, assured Lapid that what had occurred was no more than a “technical delay.” He quickly moved to bring the new bill to a vote. Of course, one might also note that Lapid had not hesitated to contact Hoyer and state clearly Israel’s demand that something be done. He felt himself empowered to put pressure on a foreign legislative body to take action that would result in considerable benefit to his own country precisely because he knew that Hoyer would be on his side. One wonders if bottom dwellers like Hoyer might be indicted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) since he is clearly no longer working for the United States, nor defending its Constitution as he is required by oath to do.
So it is a done deal once again. Israel has its money, as always, and has bent American politicians to its will. Unfortunately, the denizens of Congress were all too willing to be bent. The stooges on Capitol Hill and in the media are largely to blame for this shameful behavior, to be sure, but Alison Weir of If Americans Knewhas proposed that those who object to the use of US taxes to support a rogue state might well begin to put pressure on their congresscritters to encourage the wealthy Israelis to pay for their own missiles. Beyond that, as it is the Gazans, West Bank Palestinians and Lebanese who have borne the brunt of Israel aggression, the US can finally seize the high ground on a major human rights issue by ponying up another billion to improve their defensive capabilities for the next time the Jewish state comes calling. It is a wonderful idea and it just might convince Israel that there are consequences for bad behavior. And, by the way, it would be an antidote to some very bad behavior by the United States of America, which has been funding and encouraging Israel and emboldening its apologists ever since the Suez Crisis in 1956, which was the last time a US President actually successfully defied Israel.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org
There’s one piece of the U.S. federal government’s $3.5 trillion spending plan you’re not hearing about on mainstream news, and one reason for that may be because it’s the media themselves who are the beneficiaries.
Dubbed the Local Journalism Sustainability Act, the legislation, if passed, could mean upward of $1 million in payroll tax credits for larger news organizations like The Philadelphia Inquirer. Specifically, it bails out failing news agencies by helping to pay reporters’ salaries with tax credits and other perks.
Several newspapers have already taken advantage of bailouts previously offered during the pandemic, with The Seattle Times getting $9.9 million while The Tampa Tribune walked off with $8.5 million.
“Every American should tell their member of Congress to oppose this idea,” The Daily Signal says. “And even more importantly, they should tell their local news outlets the same thing. No journalist subsidized with tax dollars should ever be taken seriously in this country.
“Most Americans distrust the media. They were rightfully outraged when journalists entirely ignored the Hunter Biden scandals in the final weeks of the 2020 election. But now it looks like their allies in Washington, D.C., are going to reward them for their loyalty. It will be a dark day in our nation when ‘journalists’ become beneficiaries from the federal spoils system.”
In the featured video,1 James Corbett of The Corbett Report explores what it means to “trust the science,” demolishing along the way the notion that science can ever be “settled” and beyond question. This is important, because scientific deception will continue to be used in the biosecurity state being built around us.
What Science Should You Trust?
With increasing frequency, we’re told to “trust the science” and “follow the science.” Yet what science are we supposed to follow? Exactly who’s an expert and who’s not, and who decides which is which? As I’ve been writing about for nearly two years now, there’s plenty of scientific evidence refuting everything we’re being told to accept as “fact.”
This includes the claim that masks protect against viral infection, that lockdowns slow down the spread, that school closures protect children, that there are no effective early treatments for COVID-19, and that the fast-tracked COVID shots are safe, effective and necessary even if you have natural immunity.
Whistleblowers Expose Corruption at the EPA
Corbett starts out by reviewing a recent Intercept story, published in two parts: “Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office,”2 published July 2, 2021, and “Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in ‘Hair-On-Fire’ Cases,”3 published August 4, 2021.
According to four whistleblowers — Elyse Osterweil, Martin Phillips, Sarah Gallagher and William Irwin, all of whom are scientists employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and hold doctorates in toxicology, chemistry, biochemistry and medicinal chemistry — managers and career staffers in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention have tampered with the risk assessments of dozens of chemicals to hide their dangers. According to The Intercept :4
“The whistleblowers, whose jobs involve identifying the potential harms posed by new chemicals, provided The Intercept with detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defects, and cancer.
On several occasions, information about hazards was deleted from agency assessments without informing or seeking the consent of the scientists who authored them.
Some of these cases led the EPA to withhold critical information from the public about potentially dangerous chemical exposures. In other cases, the removal of the hazard information or the altering of the scientists’ conclusions in reports paved the way for the use of chemicals, which otherwise would not have been allowed on the market.”
At the EPA, Following the Science Is a Punishable Offense
The EPA, according to these whistleblowers, is violating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and when staffers actually do follow the science wherever it leads, they are punished.
In a statement to The Intercept and Rep. Ro Khanna, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the EPA whistleblowers state that they fear “their actions (or inactions) at the direction of management are resulting in harm to human health and the environment.”
They certainly have cause for concern. For example, one recent study5 warns exposure to organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers during pregnancy can cause the chemicals to accumulate in multiple fetal organs and contribute to chronic health problems. This is the first study to demonstrate that toxic chemicals can be present in the fetus even if the mother does not have detectable levels in her blood. As noted by Beyond Pesticides:6
“… studies like these help government and health officials better identify fetal exposure contaminants and subsequent health concerns otherwise missed by current chemical monitoring methods.”
In Part 27 of its report, The Intercept discusses a particular chemical that Irwin had been assessing. He had concerns that the unnamed chemical in question was analogous to bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical now recognized for its detrimental effects on reproduction, fertility and human hormones.
When he refused to sign off on the chemical as safe, he was removed from the assessment, and the chemical was approved, despite the potential harms he’d uncovered.
So, what scientists should we trust? Scientists like these four whistleblowers? Or “the EPA” as a catchall designation, where corrupt career managers have overruled the scientists doing the actual work and who have the actual science credentials?
Believing (the Wrong) Science Now Proves You’re Racist
As noted by Corbett, this issue is no small matter. Determining what science is “valid” and what’s not has enormous repercussions for society. To illustrate his point, he goes on to review the issue of hormone-disrupting chemicals and their reproductive effects.
Some scientists have sounded the alarm, saying our reproductive capability is so severely impacted by toxic environmental factors that by 2045, all couples will require fertility treatment if they want to conceive. Sperm counts have dropped precipitously ever since the 1970s, and the trend is showing no signs of leveling off.
If true, this signals a true existential emergency, but as has become the norm over the past couple of years, the declining sperm count issue is now being reframed as a racist, “far right” issue. This in and of itself ought to signal that we’ve left science and moved into ideology, but no.
The narrative we’re asked to swallow is the complete opposite: That the scientists who made these discoveries used sham science to fit an ideological narrative rooted in white supremacy. Meanwhile, “the science” offered by nonscientists says there’s no problem here, and that’s that.
Corbett cites a Quillette article by Geoffrey Kabat, “The Sperm Count Culture War,” published mid-June 2021, which states:8
“The latest entry in the sperm count debate comes from a Harvard-MIT research team led by philosophy professors Marion Boulicault and Sarah Richardson.
They recently published a paper in the journal Human Fertility entitled ‘The Future of Sperm Variability for Understanding Global Sperm Count Trends.’ They also published an article in Slate9 summarizing their findings for a lay audience.
While the scientific paper is dense and difficult to navigate, the Slate article gets straight to the point with its title: ‘The Doomsday Sperm Theory Embraced by the Far Right.’
Its subheading elaborates: ‘The idea that male fertility is on the decline is an old myth dressed up as science.’ The authors tell us why they believe the accepted science on declining sperm counts should be rejected:
‘The human species is in grave reproductive danger, according to recent headlines. Some scientists say that sperm counts in men around the world have been plummeting, with Western men approaching total infertility by 2045.
Far-right ‘Great Replacement’ theorists, who fear that people of color are ‘replacing’ the white population, have taken up the research with gusto …
The narrative that white, Western men are in danger of emasculation and disappearance has deep roots in white nationalist discourse. It is tied to a nostalgic cultural myth of a past in which white men held unchallenged power.'”
Human Extinction Concerns Dismissed as Fearmongering
As noted by Kabat, the two philosophy professors “all but ignore the science to focus on what they believe is more important — the ideological framing of the issue in socio-cultural discourse.”
Interestingly, the paper they published is in response to “what is widely considered to be the most definitive research on science of sperm count decline,” Kabat notes, and perhaps that’s why they did it. It’s real science being debunked as “science driven by ideology,” by nonscientists who have an ideological agenda but pretend not to!
Here we have two philosophy professors trying to debunk 50 years of research by some of the most respected researchers in the field — by declaring the whole investigation racist, misogynistic and “overtly white supremacist.” They roundly dismiss concerns about impending global infertility and thus human extinction, stating:10
“What these anxieties have in common with the threat of sperm count decline is the premise that, in an environmentally clean and appropriately-gendered social past, there existed an optimal and natural manifestation of masculinity …
It is all too easy for scientific institutions, with majority-white researchers, to center white people and further these myths, which circulate often unconsciously … The recent sperm count decline research demonstrates how racist, sexist, and Eurocentric ideas can get embedded in the categories that scientists use to analyze data.”
In their paper, Boulicault et.al. offer their own hypothesis to explain and dismiss the decline in sperm count as a natural variation that has no bearing on fertility or health — none of which is accurate or true.
Expertise Matters
The take-home message here is that philosophy professors can depose (or at least attempt to depose) a team of reproductive health scientists who have spent their entire careers looking at this issue, simply by interjecting their own ideology into the mix, all while accusing the actual scientists of ideology-based hype. And here’s how mainstream media covered this clearly insufficient debunking attempt:11
Yahoo! News — “Freaking Out About Declining Sperm Count? Don’t, Harvard Researchers Say.”
The Telegraph — “Threat of Human Extinction from Falling Sperm Counts Greatly Exaggerated.”
Haaretz — “Spermaggedon in the West? Relax, Harvard Has Good News for You.”
Vox — “Sperm Counts Are Falling. This Isn’t the Reproductive Apocalypse — Yet.”
Kabat writes:12
“None of the news stories … so much as remarked on the inflammatory rhetoric of the Boulicault paper, which will appear to the fair-minded reader as an activist manifesto masquerading as a scientific hypothesis. Even the New York Times fumbled this. It provided a useful discussion of some of the questions raised by the Harvard study and presented different points of view …
But it treated the study as a serious critique of the sperm count controversy, giving no indication of Boulicault and colleagues’ ideological framing of the issue or that their alternative hypothesis has little to do with science …
It is difficult to explain the deference paid to the Harvard paper by various commentators. Perhaps we are in a time in which even trained scientists are reluctant to call out an uninformed but ideologically fashionable treatment of a high-profile issue.”
Are You Seeing How This Applies to the COVID Narrative?
These stories tell us a lot about our current situation, where ideological gatekeepers are commanding us to “look here, not there.” Actual, reproducible science by bonafide scientists is being dismissed as “ideology masquerading as science,” while fake or flimsy science is being held up as the only science worthy of that designation.
If you chose to trust science that counters the technocratic transhumanist Deep State narrative, well, then you’re labeled a racist, a misogynist, a white supremacist, a domestic terrorist or some other unpleasant and derogatory term, the only purpose of which is to shame and shut you up.
As noted by Corbett, when politicians and health authorities urge us to “trust the science,” they are referring to select agency-branded science, meaning science that has the stamp of approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Health Organization, for example.
The assumption we’re supposed to accept is that these organizations aren’t tainted by the kind of corruption we’re now told exists within the EPA — financially driven corruption that sidelines actual scientists, even within those organizations, that may have serious concerns. But regulatory capture is a longstanding problem, and there’s no evidence to suggest it’s been rooted out of the agencies we’re now told to trust without question. As noted by Corbett:
“As ‘The Science’ more and more dictates whether you can step outside your own home, or what kind of experimental interventions you are forced or coerced into putting into your body against your will, I hope you understand that the stakes have been raised to the point where this is not some mere philosophical concern. This is the heart of the biosecurity state that we are being steeped in.”
Did you see the recent hype on the latest cholesterol-lowering confection from Pharma? No data whatsoever to suggest it will improve heart disease outcomes, but UK NICE body has pronounced that billions will be spent on it regardless? Well here Dr. Aseem Malhotra and Dr. Malcolm Kendrick lay bare the latest lipid scam on GB news!
With all medical eyes on COVID19, a cardiovascular drug with no proven benefit – at all – has been approved by NICE (The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Once a drug is approved by NICE it can, and will, be prescribed by doctors in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
… approving drugs, or launching drugs before you have any evidence that they do anything – other than having a favourable effect on an established lipid biomarker – is ridiculous. But never mind, longer term studies on Inclisiran will be completed by 2023, and 2026. When will they actually be published?
Who cares, by the time they are published, Inclisiran will have made billions, and no-one will care if the results are positive, or negative, as it will have become established as ‘standard’ treatment.
A number of us found the NICE approval of Inclisiran so ridiculous that we wrote them a letter. … Read full article
This is the story of possibly the greatest corruption scandal in our country’s history.
This is the story of how petty bureaucrats and drug companies unjustly discredited an inexpensive FDA-approved drug that would have prevented Covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths for political spite and financial gain. These perpetrators, who now hold more significant positions in government, need to be held accountable for over 500,000 American deaths and the disruption of our economy.
This is the story of how a few key government officials failed to implement our well-formulated National Pandemic Plan and their weaponisation of a dangerously complicit mainstream media.
I tell this story because we, the People, deserve answers – those responsible need to be held accountable for their actions. The Covid-19 pandemic was a proverbial ‘warning shot across our bow’. Therefore we must forever prioritise pandemic preparedness as critical to our national security.
We deserve better. We deserve the truth. We deserve answers. We deserve JUSTICE.
I hope my words and timeline will help clarify what has happened, who is involved, and what action must be taken to protect our health and freedom.
I am Dr Steven Hatfill. I am a specialist physician, recognised virologist, biological weapons expert and I worked as an outside adviser to the Executive Office of the President of the United States from February 2020 through the inaugural transition period of 2021. My statements are not speculation because I had a front-row seat from the very beginning of the pandemic. My subsequent published papers and articles have been painstakingly referenced and fact-checked.
Some will tell you this is just another conspiracy theory, so I ask you to read on and judge for yourselves.
Factual events
2005 The United States creates its first National Pandemic Plan, outlining the actions to combat a serious respiratory viral disease pandemic. This is based on the previous Biological Weapons Improved Response Plan.
2008 President Obama closes the White House Global Health Security Office.
2013 After the SARS and MERS outbreaks, Chinese virologists collect hundreds of samples from bats for study at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Collaborative research begins on the coronaviruses, including gain of function (GOF) experiments (research which involves increasing the capacity of a pathogen to cause illness) in China and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
2014 The West Africa Ebola virus outbreak occurs. Dr Anthony Fauci MD [director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)] promotes a single layer of gloves for nursing Ebola patients and other inadequate protective measures. His instructions endanger the lives of health care workers, and national guidelines for protection must be urgently updated.
2014 United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) ban GOF research. The ban was implemented for 2014-2017.
2015 Chinese virologists and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill conduct unauthorised GOF experiments on coronaviruses.
2017 The 2005 Health and Human Services (HHS) National Pandemic Plan is updated. The specific responsibilities of local authorities, states and the federal government have been clearly stated. The national plan is to use early, outpatient antiviral drug treatment, home quarantine, and case contact tracing to cover the ‘vaccine gap’ (the time needed to develop a vaccine to combat any pathogen).
December 2019 Chinese authorities report the first outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan. On January 21, 2020, the first recognised case of Covid-19 occurs in the United States.
February 2020 Dr Steven Hatfill MD, a specialist physician and recognised virologist, is brought into the White House as an outside medical adviser.
Some members of the Covid-19 Task Force are considering the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a safe and effective FDA-approved drug, to control the rapidly spreading pandemic. The drug proves to prevent hospitalisation if taken when early symptoms of Covid-19 arise. The drug is cost-effective at 60 cents per tablet with Covid-19 treatment consisting of 11 tablets taken over five days. The FDA considers HCQ to be a safer drug than Tylenol.
March 23, 2020 The director of the Biological Advanced Research Development Authority (BARDA), Rick Bright PhD, is instructed by his superiors to work with the FDA to establish an Investigational New Drug (IND) authorisation for HCQ.
March 24, 2020 The next day, the director of Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr Janet Woodcock MD, contacts Rick Bright at BARDA. Dr Woodcock wrongly advises Bright that HCQ is a dangerous drug requiring an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA). Its use should be limited to hospital patients. Bright and Dr Woodcock promote this course of action, despite the early clinical data showing HCQ was the most effective in outpatients if given early during the initial infection, in effect eliminating hospitalisation. The FDA issues a EUA for HCQ for hospital use only.
In a legal document, Rick Bright makes a blatant admission of insubordination to multiple layers of leadership, including the White House, HHS Secretary Azar, and Dr Robert Kadlec, MD, the Assistant HHS Secretary for Preparedness and Readiness. Bright states the following in his whistleblower complaint: ‘. . . instead of a Nationwide Expanded Access IND protocol. Implementing the EUA was a compromise position, to rein in HHS leadership’s initial campaign to make the drugs available to the public outside of a hospital setting’. Question: When is it ever acceptable to ‘compromise’ public health during a rampaging pandemic?
April 4, 2020 Dr Anthony Fauci MD, the member of the Covid-19 Task Force responsible for informing the President of the best course of action for pandemic control, appears to be unaware of the National Pandemic Plan. In a heated White House Situation Room meeting, Dr Fauci refused to consider the use of HCQ for Covid-19 treatment. He dismisses the ever-accumulating HCQ efficacy reports from China, South Korea and France as simply ‘anecdotal’.
April 22, 2020 Rick Bright is fired as BARDA director for his insubordination. Before his dismissal, he falsely informed the press that HCQ is a dangerous drug.
Dr Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, who is not a virologist, disregards the National Pandemic Plan, which included outreach programmes with physicians using HCQ for outpatient treatment and prevention to bring the Covid-19 pandemic under control.
Dr Fauci brushes off the accumulating evidence and diverts millions of federal funds into a programme to test and manufacture an experimental drug named Remdesivir.
Remdesivir must be administered via IV and only in hospital, instead of early community treatment as prescribed in the original pandemic plan. Dr Fauci changes the plan to promote ‘societal lockdowns’ and push the development of highly experimental mRNA vaccines by multinational pharmaceutical corporations.
Note: Members of Fauci’s Covid-19 treatment panel have ties to Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Foster City, CA), the company that holds the patent for Remdesivir.
May 16, 2020 In Phase 1 clinical trials conducted by Gilead Sciences in co-operation with China and Japan, Remdesivir failed: ‘No statistically clinical effect, with severe adverse reactions’.
Note: On October 16, 2020, the WHO concludes that Remdesivir is an ineffective drug and does not recommend its use to treat Covid-19.
May 20, 2020 Shortly after becoming Senior Medical Adviser to the FDA Commissioner, Dr Janet Woodcock recused herself over future decisions concerning vaccines, citing a conflict of interest.
June 15, 2020 Dr Fauci ignores the data that HCQ works if the drug is administered during the first five days of infection. Its EUA is revoked, despite the overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness. The FDA claims that HCQ is causing fatal heart rhythms in hospitalised patients when the Covid-19 virus itself is the cause.
June 29, 2020 Dr Fauci recommends a $1.6 billion purchase of Remdesivir despite the drug’s Phase 1 failure in China. Question: Why did Dr Fauci discredit HCQ, leaving us defenseless, and order $1.6 billion of an ineffective and toxic drug?
Note: Dr Fauci’s actions pave the way for the fast-track development of experimental mRNA vaccines (and their subsequent patents), which can receive a EUA only if there are no other approved and effective medicines, like outpatient HCQ.
Afterwidespread lockdowns and millions of global deaths, the experimental mRNA vaccines are granted a EUA and released to the public. As of the date of this letter, the pandemic still prevails, and there is no FDA approved outpatient treatment for Covid-19.
A call to action for prevention, justice and reform
The actions of Dr Anthony Fauci, Dr Janet Woodcock and Rick Bright, PhD, must be independently investigated, and they must be held accountable.
All conflictsof interest and the interactions between government officials and pharmaceutical companies, including the publication of faulty research papers in respected medical journals, must be investigated, and they must be held accountable.
Immediately reinstate HCQ as an FDA-approved drug for Covid-19.
The US Pandemic Plan must be immediately reinstated as initially crafted.
Establish an outside independent United States Pandemic Response Department, with board powers including oversight.
On June 2, 2021, the distribution of my content was cancelled by PR NEWSWIRE, and I have been banned from further distribution. Their action is a brazen attempt to censor and block the true story and silence our voice as citizens.
What can you do?
1. Contact your local, state, and federal representatives and demand answers. They would have you believe that you serve them, but you employ them. Hold them accountable.
2. Cancel biased media subscriptions. Your money fuels their disinformation campaigns.
3. Read the references for this letter and the complete uncensored and referenced articles at www.drstevenhatfill.com.
Please ACT NOW, and together we can create a better future for America and the world.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has published the results of research conducted into how lenders are likely to be doing their business in the future, and what new information and personal data these companies plan to start asking from borrowers in order to determine their credit score.
The biggest takeaway is the seemingly inevitable shift from merely accessing credit information to also incorporating people’s online behavior into the process of deciding whether to lend them money necessary, for example, to buy a house.
Compared to the way the system now works in most countries – these changes, which are expected to be coming soon, look fairly invasive privacy-wise, and with no “vision” of proper safeguards. Banks and others will go as far as to access personal browsing and shopping history. This would be done by allowing automated systems, powered by algorithms, to harvest the data and turn it into credit reports.
“The use of non-financial data will have large effects on the provision of financial services. Traditionally, banks rely on the analysis of customer financial information from payment flows and accounting records. The rise of the internet permits the use of new types of nonfinancial customer data, such as browsing histories and online shopping behavior of individuals, or customer ratings for online vendors.”
Currently, those hoping to take out a loan can expect to have their repayment and credit history length, as well as total debt checked, but going forward, the IMF study suggests, this will be expanded to include what’s known as people’s digital footprint – either collected from data already publicly available, or that obtained by credit bureaus.
The stated goal is to improve “loan default predictions” – and the upcoming trend is sold as a way to give access to money to people who have previously been unable to use loans because their status is “unscorable.” Also known as “credit invisibles,” these are mostly low-income minorities and immigrants, and having access to their personal habits and behavior as exhibited on the internet is supposed to help banks and other lenders “profile” them precisely enough to determine if they should be given a loan.
On the other hand, citizens who are “scorable” but whose score is low might suffer in the new system now in the making, as their online activity could persuade lenders to cut them off from access to money.
Although the move in this direction looks inevitable, some key answers are missing: what data scraped from the internet will be used to determine someone’s credit rating, and how it will be secured.
IMF’s post warns, however, to expect an “efficiency-privacy trade-off.”
Throughout 2020 and 2021, ever since the declared COVID-19 pandemic, government officials consistently have been inconsistent in their assessments and recommendations for public health. In August 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) joined the ranks when they endorsed the CDC’s recommendation for masking.1
Since they did not want to be seen holding inconsistent positions, they removed years of information from their website that explained the importance of facial cues to early brain and child development. The removal of the content culminated August 12, 2021, with the fourth in a series of tweets, in which they said:2
“Babies and young children study faces, so you may worry that having masked caregivers would harm children’s language development. There are no studies to support this concern. Young children will use other clues like gestures and tone of voice.”
At the end of the tweet, they provided a link to an article on HealthyChildren.org3 that suggested “… when one sense is taken away, the others may be heightened.” The series of tweets was aimed at masking in general, stating:4
Masks work to reduce the spread of COVID-19 among children
Masks are a vital part of keeping kids safe at school this fall
Masks do not compromise children’s breathing
Being around adults wearing masks doesn’t delay babies’ speech or language development
Experts argue over the efficacy and necessity of masking a population that has minimal risk from the virus. You need look no further than the CDC’s website,5 which shows that children ages birth to 17 had a death rate of 0.08% in 2021 and 0.05% in 2020. Yet, it was the final statement — that masking doesn’t affect children’s development — that unleashed a reaction on Twitter from parents, speech therapists and physicians who heartedly disagreed.
American Academy of Pediatrics Caught in a Quandary
To support the unsubstantiated long-term use of masks, the AAP turned their back on years of research and their own information on the importance of facial cues with infants to protect and promote brain growth and development.
To make this work, the organization has taken down significant sections from their website about early childhood development. Reuters6 asked why the content was removed the weekend after the tweets were published. They were told the content was in the process of being migrated to a different platform.
A spokesperson told Reuters, “The AAP can confirm that our web content migration has nothing to do with AAP’s mask guidance.”7 They assured Reuters the content would be republished, but were unsure about the timeline; they expect it to be complete by the end of the year.
In other words, this well-funded and organized group is coincidentally “migrating” one key section of web content that curiously contradicts their new mask guidance, and planned this so it would take months to complete.
According to Reuters,8 any links to this content that come up in the search engine are now redirected to the AAP’s homepage. However, not all the content has been deleted since other organizations use the AAP documents to educate their clients.
For example, the “Building ‘Piece’ of Mind” pdf that was pulled as a resource on the AAP website9 is available on the Ohio Bold Beginning! site and branded with the Ohio chapter of the AAP.10 You can also download the full document from an Internet archive.11
The now “migrated” document encourages parents to pay attention to their emotional responses to their children, since “Feelings are a language that your infant understands early in life.”12 Yet, without facial cues, it’s challenging for adults, much less children, to read and understand emotional reactions. In the migrated document, the AAP says:
“As your baby grows, social smiles lead to conversations. For example: When you smile, your infant will smile back … This ‘dance’ between you and your baby is fun for both of you. It is a great way to encourage your baby’s new skills as they appear. For this important dance to work, calmly and consistently meet your baby’s needs … and smile!”
But how is that supposed to work if your baby is staring at you and other adults who have two-thirds of their faces covered with masks? How do babies know you’re smiling if your entire face is covered up? In response to the AAP, Dr. James Todaro, who runs the website MedicineUncensored, tweeted:13
“AAP in 2018: ‘How Do Infants Learn? Infants love to look at you and hear your voice. In fact, faces, with all their expressions, usually are more interesting than toys. Spend time talking, singing, and laughing. Play games of touching, stroking, and peek-a-boo.’
AAP in 2021: ‘Babies and young children study faces, so you may worry that having masked caregivers would harm children’s language development. There are no studies to support this concern. Young children will use other clues like gestures and tone of voice.’”
Did Pfizer’s Funding of the AAP Influence Their Mask Policy?
Shortly after the AAP took down their facial cue documents and posted their new masking recommendations for children, a retired chief of police questioned the AAP’s motives — and in a telling opinion piece for Law Enforcement Today,14 he revealed that Pfizer is one of the AAP’s largest funders.
Twitter users15 noticed it too, with several asking what would Pfizer’s funding have to do with the AAP’s mask recommendations. Finally, one person figured it out, saying, “perhaps the plan is to get parents so fed up with their children having to wear them they break down and get them the vax.”
In fact, the AAP itself linked vaccination to mandatory mask-wearing quite clearly when they talked with NBC news,16 which reported: “The AAP said universal masking is necessary because much of the student population is not vaccinated, and it’s hard for schools to determine who is as new variants emerge that might spread more easily among children.”
When you consider that another COVID vaccine maker, Johnson & Johnson, is also a funder for the AAP — and that Dr. Anthony Fauci made the news September 9, 2021,17 saying that vaccines for children as young as 6 months may be ready as soon as November 2021 — the idea that the AAP would consider setting the stage for parents to come begging for a vaccine doesn’t sound so off the wall.
Not Just Children Are Affected
An AAP staffer was quoted in Live From Studio 6B,18 saying, “AAP recommends masks in schools and public settings to protect children. These documents are more about interactions between infants and their parents or primary caregiver, much of which will be in a home setting where masks are usually not needed.”
However, masking facial cues affects infants and young children in day care situations and when they are out of their home. This impacts “social referencing,” which the AAP finds important to child development and refers to the ability to read the face of a stranger.19
Research20 shows mothers have unique central nervous system responses when they first see the face of their newborn. This demonstrates the significance of facial cues in building mother-infant bonding. Yet, as comments on a Twitter thread point out, infants and children are not the only ones suffering from a lack of facial cues. Twitter user MDaly is a mother and teacher, who commented:21
“I teach English to students who are not native English speakers. Wearing a mask absolutely affected their language development last year. I had to ask students to repeatedly speak up and repeat themselves which negatively affects their self-esteem as well.”
A letter to the editor in The BMJ22 expounds on the challenges faced by adults who are hearing impaired with mandatory masking. Health care has always been challenging for those with hearing impairment, especially in emergency departments where the noise level is high. Alexandra Dumitru is hearing impaired and commented:23
“Zero common sense. It’s tragic what our health institutions have become. First the CDC, now this — even adults benefit from seeing a full face. As someone hearing impaired masks have been a nightmare for me. Kids copy adults; they need to see mouths move.”
Data Are Sparse for a Very Good Reason
The AAP stated that there were no studies to support the concern that baby’s and young children’s development would be impeded by the constant use of masks in the adults who care for them. Yet, as one person on Twitter said, “If you don’t study something, you can say there are no studies.”24
However, the data are sparse and there are no studies analyzing the effect of masking on young children because before 2020 it would never have passed an ethical review board. Imagine gathering a cohort of 40 infants. Nearly from the time of birth 20 parents would wear masks anytime they had interactions with their children. The other 20 would serve as a control group, being raised in a way formerly advised by the AAP.
After five years of what could only be called abusive behavior, psychiatrists and behavior psychologists would test these children to find their brain development, language development and ability to recognize facial cues are stunted. And yet, the AAP would like us to believe that won’t happen — without testing infant development in an environment known to be detrimental, we cannot extrapolate the information and understand it would be detrimental.
In 1990, the world discovered a carefully guarded secret of the Romanian Communist Party’s leader, Nicolae Ceauşescu.25 After his execution the new government brought in Western psychologists and child specialists to help deal with the 170,000 children who were abandoned in orphanages where they received no interaction with adults.
Charles A. Nelson III, a professor of pediatrics and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, recounts his introduction to the environment these children lived in. He recalled:26
“I walked into an institution in Bucharest one afternoon, and there was a small child standing there sobbing. He was heartbroken and had wet his pants. I asked, ‘What’s going on with that child?’ A worker said, ‘Well, his mother abandoned him this morning and he’s been like that all day.’ That was it. No one comforted the little boy or picked him up. That was my introduction.”
The children in the orphanages of Romania not only didn’t have “face time” with their caregivers, but also didn’t have any comfort or interaction. It’s not hard to imagine how an infant, who relies on cues from other people to learn and grow, could be stunted by having little exposure to facial expressions.
The Still Face Experiment
The horrific environment these children and young adults lived in was the largest human experiment in which children did not receive interaction from other humans. Until, that is, 2020 and 2021, when many infants and children are being raised in an environment where they are unable to read facial cues. In this short video, you’ll see what happens during the “still face” experiment when the infant does not get a response from the mother.
The still face experiment demonstrated how infants are vulnerable to the emotional or nonemotional reactions of people. In the COVID-19 pandemic, infants and children are lacking visual facial cues, but the expectation is they continue to receive emotional interaction at the same level they did before the mask mandates.
Research has demonstrated that when parents struggle to be emotionally present with their children, the children grow up having more trouble with trust and regulating their own emotions.27 However, there has been no data before 2020 to determine if masking facial cues would cause children to grow up with the same issues.
Are Facial Cues Recognizable Through Masks?
Research produced after 2020 has demonstrated that children and adults struggle to recognize emotion in people who are masked. How this will affect overall child development and whether the children can “catch up” if mask mandates are ever removed, is yet to be determined.
For example, in one study28 published by the University of Wisconsin-Madison in December 2020, researchers engaged children ages 7 to 13 and showed them photos of people exhibiting six different emotions. Without the masks, the children identified the emotions correctly 66% of the time.29
However, when masks were in place, this dropped to between 18% and 28% for sadness, fear and anger. A second study30 in children ages 3 to 5 years demonstrated that the younger children had even more difficulty.
The data were in line with past literature that confirmed that a face mask affected understanding emotions. They found the toddlers’ performance was more influenced by a mask than older children and adults.31
Similar studies have also been performed with adults. One study32 published in September 2020 with 41 healthy adults aged 18 to 87 years presented the participants with photos of six different expressions.
When the photos were not wearing masks, the overall performance for identifying emotions was 89.5%. This dropped significantly when masks were in place. A second study33 published in Scientific Reports in 2021, analyzed the effects of masking to measure emotion recognition and trust attribution in 122 adult men and women.
The researchers found that standard masks interfered with both measures and made it more difficult to identify an individual they had already encountered when the mask was removed.
Data produced since 2020 have shown that masks do an excellent job of masking a person’s ability to read emotions, but likely do not have the same efficacy in slowing the spread of a virus. The question we therefore must ask is, what will be the long-term effect on the emotional and mental health of society as the generation of children raised without full exposure to facial cues become doctors, lawyers, businesspeople and politicians?
Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology, is interviewed by Jimmy Dore. Malone is not “anti-vax,” but he is “pro-ethics” and believes that all medical procedures require truly informed consent, with absolutely no coercion. He shares the view of Geert Vanden Bossche, whom he mentions in the interview, that the vaccines help to generate the variants because they are non-sterilizing. He says they should be targeted toward those who are at highest risk from the virus, seniors and those with multiple co-morbidities. I personally disagree with that. I think they should be taken off the market altogether, but at least he is adamantly against mandates.
The European Ombudsman has demanded that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen explain how she lost text messages that she exchanged with the CEO of Pfizer during talks about vaccine procurement.
European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, the EU’s top accountability and governance officer, launched an inquiry into the European Commission’s refusal to hand over the contents of communications between von der Leyen and a CEO of an unnamed pharmaceutical company about a Covid-19 vaccine contract.
As a first step, O’Reilly asked the Commission to explain its policy on keeping records of von der Leyen’s text messages. “The Commission has an obligation to record instant messages relating to important policy or political matters, such as the procurement of Covid-19 vaccines,” O’Reilly’s office wrote in a statement about the case.
In April, the New York Times reported that von der Leyen had been exchanging texts and calls with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla for a month as part of negotiations about vaccine procurement for the bloc. The paper wrote at the time that personal diplomacy played a big role in securing the vaccine deal.
O’Reilly requested that the Commission hand over the text messages, but the Commission claimed that “no record had been kept of any such messages,” according to the ombudsman’s office.
The office has previously warned about the importance of record-keeping within EU institutions amid an increased amount of remote work in the Covid era. “EU administration is required by EU law to draw up and retain documentation pertaining to its activities, as far as possible and in a non-arbitrary and predictable manner,” the watchdog said in June.
Politicians receive very comfortable salaries. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for instance, earns $223,500 a year, making her the third-highest-paid elected official in the U.S. Yet, since 2004, her wealth has increased from $41 million to nearly $115 million, according to OpenSecrets, which began tracking lawmakers’ personal finances that year.
She’s not alone in her wealth. Personal financial disclosures reveal that more than half of Congress members are millionaires, with a median net worth of just over $1 million. As is often the case, however, the top 10% of the lawmakers in terms of wealth are three times richer than the bottom 90%. Pelosi comes in as number 6 on a list of the wealthiest members of the 116th Congress.
At issue isn’t the fact that politicians are multimillionaires — rather, as noted on a recent Twitter thread by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, it’s how they made their millions:
“If you think it’s fine and normal that the Speaker of the House’s personal wealth tripled to $115 million ever since financial disclosures were required (2004), that’s fine, but the issue is how that money was made. It was from companies directly affected by her actions.”
Politicians get rich from ‘lucky’ stock trading
In the last two years, nearly 75% of Pelosi’s stock trades have involved Big Tech stocks, totaling over $33 million in trading. “That has happened as major legislation is pending before the House, controlled by the committees Pelosi oversees, which could radically reshape the industry and laws that govern the very companies in which she and her husband most aggressively trade,” Greenwald wrote in a blog.
Pelosi’s most traded company was Apple, accounting for 17.7% of her trades. But unlike most people buying and selling Apple stock, Pelosi had the privilege of speaking privately with Apple CEO Tim Cook on at least one occasion to discuss the company’s standing and how it could be affected by pending bills relating to Silicon Valley reforms.
The call in question occurred just days after antitrust reform legislation was introduced. Big Tech pushed back, and Cook called Pelosi directly to voice his concerns. Pelosi, according toThe New York Times, then asked him which measures he specifically objected to. Greenwald reported on the blatant conflict of interest:
“Sources who refused to be identified tried to convince the Times’ reporters that ‘Ms. Pelosi pushed back on Mr. Cook’s concerns about the bills.’ But in doing so, they confirmed the rather crucial fact that Pelosi was having personal, private conversations with the CEO of a company in which she and her husband were heavily invested and off of which they were making millions of dollars in personal wealth.
“And Pelosi, according to the report, asked Cook what changes were needed to avoid harming Apple and other Silicon Valley giants.”
Trading stocks in companies affected by pending legislation
Greenwald also revealed that Pelosi’s five most-traded stocks in the last two years — Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Google — were those that stood to be most affected by pending legislation, and not just any legislation, but legislation that she was working to negotiate and work through Congress.
Four of the companies — Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google — were directly identified by the House Antitrust Subcommittee as being monopolies, making their futures heavily dependent on the pending legislation. According to Greenwald:
“Beyond that, Google — one of the companies in which the Pelosis’ stock trades have made millions — is one of the top five donors to the House Speaker. The wealthy couple buys and sells in Google stock, making millions. She works on bills that directly affect the future trajectory of Google. And they lavish her campaign coffers with cash, a key source of her entrenched power.”
Meanwhile, Pelosi’s husband, Paul, purchased risky options in Alphabet, the parent company of Google, in February 2020, which he sold in June, netting more than $5 million in profits. The purchase was made, Greenwald wrote:
“… right before the market began plunging due to the COVID epidemic and right before the House, led by his wife, was set to introduce new legislation to regulate those same tech companies. Yet even as the prices in several of those companies plummeted, Paul Pelosi held onto them, only to sell them last June at a massive profit.”
He also cited two other “disturbing incidents” in which Paul Pelosi had impeccable timing with his investment decisions, including exercising nearly $2 million worth of Microsoft call options within two weeks of a Microsoft contract to supply the U.S. Army with augmented reality headsets. The other incident involved the purchase of about $1 million in Tesla stock after calls made prior to the government announcing incentives it would offer to promote the shift toward electric vehicles.
“In response to media inquiries,” Greenwald reported, “Pelosi denied that she is involved in or even has knowledge of her husband’s stock trading. There is, of course, no way to confirm or disprove that, but what is clear is that the vast wealth generated by those stock trades in companies Pelosi greatly affects — and about which she clearly has non-public information — directly enriches Pelosi herself.”
Suspicious COVID-related trading
Not every lawmaker had filed annual financial disclosures at the time of OpenSecrets’ latest report, including Sen. Kelly Loeffler, (R-Ga.), who has an estimated worth of over $500 million.
She and her husband, New York Stock Exchange chief executive Jeff Sprecher, came under fire for suspicious stock trades worth between $1.2 million and $3.1 million that occurred immediately after a “closed-door coronavirus briefing in late January” 2020. Among them:
Buying stock in an online travel booking site in February 2020, then selling it four days later, just before a ban on flights from Europe was publicly announced.
Purchasing stock in Citrix, which sells GoToMeeting teleworking software.
Loeffler denied using confidential information from her Senate duties to make a private profit but announced in April 2020 that she and her husband were liquidating their stock holdings and “moving into exchange-traded funds and mutual funds.” In other suspicious instances:
Sen. Richard Burr, (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who receives frequent briefings about potential U.S. threats, also dumped stock, including in hotel companies, worth up to $1.7 million in late January 2020.
“As Intel chairman,” Burr “got private briefings about coronavirus weeks ago,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-N.Y.), tweeted at the time. “Burr knew how bad it would be. He told the truth to his wealthy donors while assuring the public that we were fine.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.), and Sen. James Inhofe, (R-Okla.), also sold stock after Intelligence Committee briefings.
How is this legal?
Corruption runs deep in politics, with Big Tech and Big Pharma giving campaign money to politicians who in turn receive non-public information about the corporations that can be used to enrich their personal stock portfolios. The lawmakers then have influence over legislation that affects the companies in which they’re personally invested.
Politicians are supposed to be performing a public service, but once they’re out of the public eye, many go on to serve as lobbyists or work in the corporate world. This means that during their tenure, they don’t want to close doors that may help them once they’re no longer in politics.
The system is such that most politicians aren’t fighting for the public but, rather, are looking out for their own self-interest and wealth accumulation. Case in point: There were 1,502 pharmaceutical lobbyists in 2020, 63.91% of whom were former government employees.
A revolving door, in which government employees and former members of Congress take jobs with lobbying firms, is common among lobbyists, and the reverse also occurs, in which people from the private sector end up in government positions. How is this legal? As Greenwald explained, unless insider trading can be proven, this type of “lucky” trading that is building the wealth of numerous politicians will continue:
“While the trades cannot be declared illegal unless it can be proven that either Pelosi acted on non-public information — in which case it would be the felony of insider trading — the ethical stench is obvious.
“Just as was true when numerous Senators from both parties sold stocks in COVID-related industries before the pandemic began — raising questions about whether they had advance knowledge of what was coming through classified briefings — watching Nancy Pelosi’s wealth skyrocket by millions of dollars from trades in the very companies she is directly overseeing creates a sleazy appearance, to put that mildly.”
Politicians are in good company, as top health officials also cash in on stock options tied to the companies they oversee. For instance, Dr. Julie Gerberding — director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2002 until 2009, who after leaving the CDC became president of Merck’s vaccine division in January 2010 — sold half her Merck stock options for $9.11 million in January 2020.
In March 2020, a group of legislators introduced the Ban Conflicted Trading Act to “prohibit members of Congress and senior congressional staff from abusing their positions for personal financial gain through trading individual stocks and investments while in office or serving on corporate boards.”
“Members of Congress should not be allowed to buy and sell individual stock,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “We are here to serve the public, not to profiteer.” Senator Jeff Merkley, who introduced the Act to the Senate, added:
“Buying and selling stocks while making decisions that affect the stock’s value is inherently a conflict of interest. At best, it can seriously degrade public trust — as we are seeing today. At worst, it’s a blatant abuse of power.”
Seven southern US states, mostly led by Republican governors, say they are now facing shortages of monoclonal antibody treatments for Covid-19 after the federal government took over the distribution, citing the need for “equity.”
Monoclonal antibodies (MAB) are lab-created proteins that help those already infected deal with the virus. They have been intensively deployed in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas – states dealing with the recent surge of Delta-variant cases. With the exception of Louisiana, they are all run by Republicans.
On Wednesday, the Biden administration announced it would take over the distribution of these treatments using the Defense Production Act and would be centralizing them under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A HHS spokesperson said this was being done to avoid shortages, as the seven states account for 70% of all orders.
“Given this reality, we must work to ensure our supply of these life-saving therapies remains available for all states and territories, not just some,” the spokesperson told CNN.
“HHS will determine the amount of product each state and territory receives on a weekly basis. State and territorial health departments will subsequently identify sites that will receive product and how much,” the spokesperson said. “This system will help maintain equitable distribution, both geographically and temporally, across the country – providing states and territories with consistent, fairly-distributed supply over the coming weeks.”
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican who has clashed with President Joe Biden on Covid policies – from mask mandates to compulsory vaccination – said that the move has resulted in cutting the supply to his state by more than 50%.
The federal government has allocated fewer than 31,000 doses to Florida this week, while the average need for hospitals and state clinics is 72,000, his office said.
DeSantis said on Thursday that he has reached out to GlaxoSmithKline, another pharmaceutical company, to purchase their MAB treatment in order to make up the shortfall.
In Texas, the Biden administration told the state “to reduce its use of the therapeutic treatment that has literally been saving lives and reducing hospitalizations,” Mark Keough, a judge in charge of Montgomery County, just north of Houston, said in a Facebook post on Tuesday.
“The manufacturer has confirmed supplies are ample but due to the Defense Production Act, the White House and it’s agencies are the only entities who can purchase and distribute this treatment,” Keough added.
“So, less than a week after the president tells us his patience is wearing thin and he is mandating vaccines to millions of Americans, his administration limits and all but removes a non-controversial and highly successful treatment from our war chest of combating this virus,” he said.
One DeSantis aide said that the HHS hasn’t adequately explained its move, or given a warning.
“They had a vague statement about ‘equity’ but sorry that doesn’t cut it,” the aide toldReal Clear Politics. “No explanation of how the allocation was determined. No explanation of why it’s only Florida and a few other red states being restricted. No warning.”
“How is it equitable to only send treatment for HALF the Floridians who need it, & NO state sites in Alabama?” DeSantis’s press secretary Christina Pushaw asked on Twitter.
She also pointed out that, just weeks ago, Democrats and their allies in the corporate press were claiming that MAB treatments were a scam to enrich a DeSantis donor – prompting a war of words – but have now suddenly pivoted to claiming that Florida is using too many doses.
Some pundits are going so far as to speculate that the move is part of a “civil war” in the US, since six out of seven states hardest-hit by HHS rationing are run by Republicans, and incumbent Donald Trump won all of them in the 2020 election.
In honour of Michael Parenti (1933–2026), who passed away on 24 January 2026 at the age of 92. He spent his life naming what power prefers to leave unnamed.
In 1837, Abraham Lincoln remarked: “These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people.”
Today, he would be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.
That dismissal—reflexive, automatic, requiring no engagement with evidence—is not a mark of sophistication. It is a tell. The question worth asking is not whether conspiracies exist (they are a matter of public record and a recognised concept in law) but why acknowledging their existence provokes such reliable hostility. What work does the label “conspiracy theorist” actually do?
The late political scientist Michael Parenti spent decades answering that question. His conclusion was blunt: “’Conspiracy’ refers to something more than just illegal acts. It serves as a dismissive label applied to any acknowledgment of ruling-class power, both its legal and illegal operations.” The term functions not as a descriptor but as a weapon—a thought-terminating cliché that protects the powerful from scrutiny by pathologising those who scrutinise them.
Conspiracy denial, in Parenti’s analysis, is not skepticism. It is the opposite of skepticism. It is credulity toward power dressed up as critical thinking. As he wrote in Dirty Truths: “Just because some people have fantasies of conspiracies does not mean all conspiracies are imaginary.” … continue
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.
In the last two years, nearly 75% of Pelosi’s stock trades have involved 
Aletho News 