Who Stole the 2020 US Presidential Election?
Antony Blinken and others have much to answer for
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • MAY 2, 2023
The corruption engaged in by the Democratic Party leadership appears to be never-ending and no one is ever held accountable. A recent report described how Michael Morell, the former acting Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director, colluded with Antony Blinken, who was then a senior official in the 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign, to prepare and find signatories to a letter to discredit those seeking to exploit the emerging Hunter Biden laptop scandal, which was threatening to do real damage to the Biden electoral prospects. Following in the footsteps of the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign, which sought to use fabricated information from the Steele dossier to smear Donald Trump and some of his advisors, Blinken suggested that Morell promote the argument that the laptop story involved Russia and should be dismissed as little more than a disinformation operation ordered by President Vladimir Putin. At the time, there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Russia had had anything to do with spreading fabricated information regarding Hunter Biden or his laptop, but that was regarded as immaterial.
The conspiracy to use a false narrative to corruptly influence the outcome of the election, for that is what it was, was recently revealed in testimony by Morell to the House Judiciary Committee, led by Republican Representative Jim Jordan. Morell described how he had been instrumental in convincing 50 other former colleagues in the intelligence and national security community to sign on to the letter that he had drafted. Morell told the committee that Blinken acting for the Biden campaign helped to strategize about the timing and distribution for the public release of the letter and he described how his two objectives in drafting and releasing the statement was “to help then-Vice President Biden in the upcoming presidential debate and assist him in winning the election.”
Presumably Morell, known for his ambition and ruthlessness, may have expected Biden to appoint him head of the CIA when it came time to hand out rewards after the election was over. Concerning his own political ambitions and inclinations, one recalls how in 2016 Morell wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that was picked up nationally which headlined “I ran the CIA: now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton.”
By virtue of exploiting his own top level connections inside the Agency, five of Morell’s letter’s signatories were former Directors of the CIA. The letter included the assertion by the signatories that they were “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case… If we are right this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.” It concluded that the laptop allegations exhibited “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
After the letter was prepared, Blinken advised Morell on its most advantageous timing, selecting a date close to the election so it would have maximum impact. The laptop story itself had appeared in the New York Post on October 14th, revealing emails demonstrating how the Vice President Joe Biden appeared to have pressured Ukrainian officials into firing a prosecutor who was investigating corruption in the energy company Burisma. Joe met with a top company official, which led to the granting of a sinecure position on the Burisma board to his influence peddling son Hunter, which paid him $50,000 per month. Material also included on the laptop revealed Hunter’s moral turpitude and drug use.
The Morell rebuttal appeared in Politico five days later, two weeks before the election, on October 19th, and was picked up by the mainstream media all over the United States. Joe Biden also used the material in his debate with Trump on October 22nd, accusing Moscow of targeting his son in an elaborate propaganda operation, claiming that the laptop story was “garbage” and part of a “Russian plan.” Biden referred to the many signatures on the intelligence community letter to declare that “nobody believes” that the laptop is real. And the denial did have a genuine impact on the campaign. After the Morell letter appeared, nearly all major social and news media platforms that had allowed linking to or discussion of the Hunter laptop story either censored the material completely or limited access to it while also posting warnings that the tale had been debunked by knowledgeable experts. Also to be considered is how the Blinken-Morell letter fueled the false perception that Russia and Putin were supporting Trump through clandestine and underhanded means.
Investigative journalist Jim Bovard, writing in the New York Post, reports ironically how Secretary of State Antony Blinken in the closing speech at last month’s Summit for Democracy “piously proclaimed” that “As President Biden has said, democracy doesn’t happen by accident. ‘It requires constant effort.’” And shortly after he became Secretary of State, Blinken had had the nerve to claim that the US government doesn’t sweep problems “under the rug… We deal with them in the daylight, with full transparency.” Indeed, Blinken may have been rewarded by Biden with his cabinet position after his successful plausibly illegal intervention. Also apparently rewarded was a signatory on the Morell letter – Avril Haines who is now Director of National Intelligence.
To be sure, the “honorable” Secretary of State Antony Blinken should now be instead offering his resignation over the exposure of his blatant and possibly successful attempt to change the outcome of an election by conspiring to corrupt the electoral process with false information to sway voters. Bovard opines how the Morell letter defused what had become “the biggest threat to the Biden presidential campaign … Polls show that Biden would have lost the election if the media had accurately reported the contents of that laptop.”
And there’s more to the Hunter Biden story and the corrupt hand of government. An IRS employee has recently turned whistleblower and stated that his Agency has been moving sluggishly on an investigation of Hunter regarding tax evasion relating to foreign income derived largely from Ukraine and China. And he claims that another senior Biden appointed official is involved in the politically motivated foot dragging. No less than Attorney General Merrick Garland has been identified as the unnamed senior official whose sworn testimony to a congressional committee is being challenged in a letter from the whistleblower’s attorney alleging a cover-up of the Hunter Biden criminal investigation. Attorney Mark Lytle wrote that the longtime IRS employee would like to provide information to congressional leaders to “contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee” — now identified as Garland — and also to provide details of claimed “preferential treatment” in the criminal probe of Hunter.
One more tale just might illustrate where this country is going under Joe Biden and company, where party and personal interests are all that matter to a leadership which regards “integrity” as a dirty word. In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech or writing that in any way challenges its power, exposes its corruption, reveals its lies, and encourages the citizenry to resist government overreach. The Biden Administration has recently indicted four Americans and charged them with conspiracy to spread Russian propaganda and acting as unregistered Russian agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. The four are members of the African People’s Socialist Party, which has criticized and opposed US foreign policy since 1971 and currently is against Washington’s promotion of the war against Russia in Ukraine. They potentially face 15 years in prison. This exploitation of quite plausibly unconstitutional “lawfare” is nothing new, as in my own experience the Justice (sic) Department has been moving to silence Americans who write for Russian news sites by threatening them with huge fines or even imprisonment. It is a tendency that is unfortunately not unique to any particular presidential administration which has been building since 9/11, though it has become far worse under Joe Biden and Merrick Garland. In no cases that I know of have any of those pressured or accused actually been receiving direction or secret benefits from the Russian government.
That all means that the definition of illegal speech or writing has been considerably broadened of late. The Biden Administration has been actively waging a campaign to eradicate what it chooses to call “disinformation,” to include those who allegedly share “false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information” with terrorists. It is, in fact, the United States government that is the world’s largest purveyor of disinformation, to include adopting the Israeli practice of defining anyone who resists US hegemony as a terrorist. For example, that is how the Justice Department labels white so-called supremacists as “domestic terrorists.”
And, of course, the government is being assisted and protected due to the fact that nearly all the negative stories about Biden and his crew have predictably been suppressed by the mainstream media, which has become a de facto a partner of the White House disinformation program. Consider, for example, the Seymour Hersh revelations about the hideous “act of war” Nord Stream pipeline destruction and the corruption in Ukraine, or the revelation of disinformation regarding the war in Ukraine itself exposed by leaker Jack Teixeira, or the biolabs in Ukraine, or the incessant lies denigrating Russia and its leadership. And where does one go to for any legitimate criticism of the reckless White House driven direct engagement in Ukraine that could go nuclear even though it is in support of no real national interest? Or the thoughtless threatening of China over Taiwan? And how about the State Department using overseas Embassies to promote “woke-ism” rather than protecting American travelers and interests? All these stories are targeted and diminished deliberately, gone or going, never to be seen again.
So it should surprise no one that the White House and media are right now trying to kill the exposure of how Blinken and Morell turned around the story of the Hunter laptop because that would confirm suspicions that Joe Biden may have actually stolen the 2020 election. And the back story is that the fabricated material planted by the Clinton and Biden campaigns in 2016 and 2020 only succeeded because of the media’s surrender of its traditional role as an exposer of government crimes and evasions. The phony Morell intelligence letter and its possible consequences is a scandal of huge proportions that would once upon a time have ended in resignations, impeachment, and plenty of jail time for all of those involved but Michael Morell and Antony Blinken have not even been touched or even interviewed by the FBI. Nor have the other fifty national security puppets who signed off onto claims made in a document that they must have known to be fabricated for political reasons experienced any discomfort. They have no shame and are all disgraces to the oath of loyalty to the Constitution that they once swore. And the real danger is that if the clueless government and media continue to be able to bury stories they do not approve of, the United States will cease to be a functioning democracy and every election will be little more than a farce.
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 councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Texas Launches Investigation into Gain-of-Function Research and Misrepresentations by Covid-19 Vaccine Manufacturers
By Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas | May 1, 2023
Attorney General Paxton launched an investigation into the pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson concerning whether they engaged in gain-of-function research and misled the public about doing so.
Paxton is also investigating whether the companies misrepresented the efficacy of their Covid-19 vaccines and the likelihood of transmitting Covid-19 after taking the vaccines in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The investigation will also look into the potential manipulation of vaccine trial data. This investigation concerns potentially fraudulent activity that falls outside the scope of legal immunity granted to manufacturers of the Covid-19 vaccine. It will also review the companies’ controversial practice of reporting the metric of “relative risk reduction” instead of “absolute risk reduction” when publicly discussing the efficacy of their vaccines.
In recent years, certain pharmaceutical companies have had record-breaking financial success, driven in part by sales made from products related to the Covid-19 pandemic. This vested interest in the success of these Covid-19 products, combined with reports about the alarming side effects of vaccines, demands aggressive investigation.
Texas’s investigation will force these companies to turn over documents the public otherwise could not access. Attorney General Paxton is committed to discovering the full scope of decision-making behind pandemic interventions forced on the public, especially when a profit motive or political pressure may have compromised Americans’ health and safety. Efforts by the federal government to coerce compliance with unjust and illegal pandemic interventions, even at the cost of citizens’ employment, means this investigation into the scientific and ethical basis on which public health decisions were made is of major significance.
Given the unprecedented political power and influence over public health policies that pharmaceutical companies now wield, it is more important than ever that they are held accountable if they take dangerous, illegal actions to boost their revenues.
“The development of the Covid-19 vaccine, and the representations made by and knowledge of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, are of profound interest to the public’s health and welfare. This investigation aims to discover the truth,” said Attorney General Paxton. “This pandemic was a deeply challenging time for Americans. If any company illegally took advantage of consumers during this period or compromised people’s safety to increase their profits, they will be held responsible. If public health policy was developed on the basis of flawed or misleading research, the public must know. The catastrophic effects of the pandemic and subsequent interventions forced on our country and citizens deserve intense scrutiny, and we are pursuing any hint of wrongdoing to the fullest.”
To read the CID for Pfizer, click here.
To read the CID for Moderna, click here.
To read the CID for Johnson & Johnson, click here.
Revisionist history: Fauci and Weingarten distance themselves from the School Closure policy they enacted & encouraged
Media does not hold them accountable because they are political allies
BY VINAY PRASAD | OBSERVATIONS AND THOUGHTS | APRIL 29, 2023
I always say that the most common way people change their mind is that they rewrite their memories and imagine they always agreed with you. Years ago, we published a provocative paper that qualified the percent of cancer patients eligible for genomic drugs. (it was ~8%), and the same doctors who had until recently claimed that these drugs have changed care for most people, were quick to say, “I always said only a fraction are eligible.” Sure you did, buddy. Sure you did.
To some degree, it is forgivable. The human ego is strong, and it is hard for many to admit they were wrong. When it comes to everyday Americans, I support their right to mis-remember their historical views on COVID19 policy. In fact, I predicted a great swing on this issue specifically — schools.
But, my concession does not extend to the architects of school closure. The experts who went on TV and repeatedly scared the public out of sending their kids to schools, and scared Governors, districts and teachers out of their duty to kids. These people should be remember as being on the wrong side of history, and receive the punishment they deserve: being precluded from shaping policy every again.
That includes Anthony Fauci and Randi Weingarten— two people who are doing an aggressive media campaign to distance themselves from the policies they set in motion.
One of Fauci’s defenses is that he just gave advice, and did not shut anything down. This is contradicted by the fact that he previously took credit for lockdowns, and specifically noted that in early march 2020, Trump faithfully followed his advice.
Of course the NIAID director and WH Covid counsel member has a special responsibility to give good advice, and should know the probability his advice shapes policy is high.
Additionally, he controls a multibillion dollar research budget. Why did he run zero RCTs of masking? School reopening? Distancing? Cohorting? Busing? Ventilation? That was entirely in his power, and there is no excuse for giving advice while not studying your advice, when you control the entire research budget!
Fauci’s next claim is that he always wanted schools reopened. This is contradicted by a detailed timeline of his position on schools, which was consistently to fearmonger about kids and keep them closed.
In the summer of 2020, Fauci was still opposed to schools.
In spring 2020, when DeSantis reopened Fauci went on multiple news outlets to sabotage those efforts
As for Randi, the most accurate comment was in this clip from a distressed parent:
Randi claims she just wanted to open schools safety, but the problem is you didn’t need 750 billion dollars and hepa filtration to open safely. Even masks were unnecessary. Ultimately, schools reopened and ~100% of kids got COVID anyway, the vast majority did fine, most did not have the vaccine beforehand, and there is no reliable evidence the vax lowered the risk of severe disease for kids. All you needed to reopen were teachers with courage, sadly Randi and Tony sapped that away from them with constant inaccurate rhetoric.
The truth is Randi asked for things she knew she would not get, so she could justify her position that teachers be paid, get first dips on vaccine (over the elderly), and continue to not work in person.
School closure has already destroyed a generation of kids. The full damage is not yet appreciated, but the first signs are showing.
The virus was comparable to other viruses in healthy children, and no one should have disrupted their lives. It was not only wrong in retrospect, it was wrong at the time, and many of us saw it instantly and clearly. It was a human rights violation to close schools for kids.
Fauci and Weingarten are the tip of the spear of school closure. History should remember that, and no one should ever entertain their opinion on a policy matter again. The media coverage of them has been meek and toothless.
ABC News censors presidential candidate’s vaccine comments
RT | April 28, 2023
ABC News has censored an interview with US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Joe Biden’s top challenger for the Democratic Party’s 2024 nomination – by removing his allegedly false assertions about Covid-19 vaccines.
“We should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the Covid-19 vaccines,” ABC anchor Linsey Davis said on Thursday after airing her interview with the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy.
She added that Kennedy made “misleading claims” contrary to research findings about a link between certain vaccines and autism. “We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including portions of that exchange in our interview.”
Davis sparred with Kennedy during the interview, saying his past claims about vaccines causing autism had been totally “debunked.” As the candidate began to explain why he believes major public health agencies, such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are “captive,” his comments were cut off. The clip then cuts to Davis pointing out that some of Kennedy’s family members disagree with his views on vaccines.
“I’m just curious, if you’re not able to get your own sisters to vote for you for president, how would you make that appeal to American voters?” the host asked. Kennedy replied that he has a large family with a tradition of openly discussing issues on which they disagree. “That’s something that I think is a lesson we ought to learn for this country. We can disagree with each other without hating each other, without marginalizing each other.” Davis shot back, “I’m just using your family’s words to call you dangerous, rather than saying that’s not like the typical family that might have disagreements around the kitchen table.”
Kennedy noted on Friday that federal law prohibits broadcasters from censoring presidential candidates.
“Instead of journalism, the public saw a hatchet job,” he said. “Instead of information, they got defamation and unsheathed pharma propaganda. Americans deserve to hear the full interview so they can make up their own minds. How can democracy function without a free and unbiased press?”
A Fox News poll released on Thursday showed that although President Biden’s rivals for the Democratic Party’s nomination are longshot candidates, Kennedy is gaining ground. While 62% of Democrat voters want the party to nominate Biden for re-election, 19% favor Kennedy. A previous poll indicated that Kennedy was supported by 14% of Democrats after entering the race earlier this month.
Kennedy is the nephew of John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963, and the son of presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, who was shot dead on the campaign trail in 1968. He has pledged to end the “corrupt merger between state and corporate power” and has spoken out against Washington’s policy of using military power to enforce global hegemony. “The Ukraine war is the final collapse of the neocons’ short-lived ‘American Century,’” he said earlier this month.
State Covid Propaganda Destroyed Public’s Ability to Consent to Vaccines – Chairman of UK Council for Psychotherapy
BY DR CHRISTIAN BUCKLAND | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | APRIL 28, 2023
There follows an open letter from Dr. Christian Buckland, Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy, to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemning the “use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural science on the unknowing and non-consenting U.K. public”. Among numerous harms are that the use of techniques to increase fear, shame and guilt “materially undermined, if not removed, the U.K. population’s ability to give valid informed consent to taking a COVID-19 vaccine”.
April 28th 2023
Dear Prime Minister,
I am the Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), one of the UK’s foremost psychological governing bodies. However, I write this open letter in my own capacity. I believe I have a professional obligation to write to you in an attempt to protect the public from any further harm caused by the unethical application of psychological research and practice.
I unreservedly condemn the U.K. Government’s use of unethical psychological techniques intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt, under the guise of behavioural science and insights which were designed to change the public’s behaviour without their knowledge and conscious participation. It is now clear that in 2020 the U.K. Government deliberately chose to artificially inflate the level of fear within the U.K. population by exaggerating the risk factors of COVID-19, and concomitantly downplaying the protective factors. We also witnessed the Government’s promotion of social disapproval and guilt messaging. These techniques were embedded into a multi-channel, co-ordinated public health campaign designed to change the public’s behaviour without their knowledge. Moreover, in tandem with the mainstream media, the Government also proactively suppressed, censored and ostracised any healthcare professional or scientist who suggested alternative responses to COIVD-19, or who simply questioned the messaging and measures being implemented by the Government.
Evidence of the recommendation of using unethical psychological techniques to gain behavioural change
The Government document titled ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’ was written for the Government by the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).
The premise of the document was to provide options for changing the behaviour of the U.K. public without their knowledge. A passage within this document states: “A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”. It makes certain recommendations including:
- “The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard hitting emotional messaging”
- “Coercion”
- “Social disapproval”
The recommendations made by SPI-B included ones intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt. Psychological practitioners know that deliberately trying to frighten someone into change with erroneous or exaggerated information can easily cause long-term psychological damage. We also know that using social disapproval can create splits and divisions within society, and that inducing feelings of guilt can elevate the risk of suicide.
SPI-B also included a simple risk assessment matrix which acknowledges that the “spill over effects” of using media to increase the sense of personal threat and of using social disapproval “could be negative”. There is also a statement demonstrating there was a conversation regarding the spill over effects, although this does not appear to be fully documented. The risk factors and ethics of using fear, shame, guilt and coercion would almost certainly have been known to the members of SPI-B because several members were British Psychological Society (BPS) registered chartered psychologists. In an interview with one of the members of SPI-B, BPS registered educational psychologist Dr. Gavin Morgan, he refers to the use of fear by his SPI-B colleagues and says (as relayed by Laura Dodsworth, in A State of Fear pp. 262,263):
“Clearly using fear as a means of control is not ethical. What you do as a psychologist is co-construction. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government.” … Was it unethical to use fear, I asked? “Well I didn’t suggest we use fear.” But your colleagues did. What do you think of that? He paused. “Oh God.” Another reluctant pause. “It’s not ethical,” he said.
Like Dr. Morgan, any BPS registered psychologists within SPI-B would or should have recognised that recommending the Government uses fear as a means of controlling the public breached their professional code of ethics and conduct. An urgent investigation is required both by the U.K. Government and the BPS. Two specific points of the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct (2021) that may have been broken are (with my emphasis):
3.3 Responsibility. Because of their acknowledged expertise, members of the Society often enjoy professional autonomy; responsibility is an essential element of autonomy. Members must accept appropriate responsibility for what is within their power, control or management. Awareness of responsibility ensures that the trust of others is not abused, the power of influence is properly managed and that duty towards others is always paramount. Statement of values: Members value their responsibilities to persons and peoples, to the general public, and to the profession and science of psychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society. In applying these values, psychologists should consider:
- Professional accountability;
- Responsible use of their knowledge and skills;
- Respect for the welfare of humans, non-humans and the living world;
- Potentially competing duties.
3.4 Integrity. Acting with integrity includes being honest, truthful, accurate and consistent in one’s actions, words, decisions, methods and outcomes. It requires setting self-interest to one side and being objective and open to challenge in one’s behaviour in a professional context. Statement of values: Members value honesty, probity, accuracy, clarity and fairness in their interactions with all persons and peoples, and seek to promote integrity in all facets of their scientific and professional endeavours”.
Evidence that psychological techniques to induce fear, shame, guilt and coercion were used on the U.K. public
The SPI-B document in question demonstrates that the options of eliciting feelings of fear, shame, guilt and the use of coercion was recommended to the U.K. Government. There is evidence that those options were indeed subsequently deployed on the U.K. population.
In August 2022, you stated:
In every brief, we tried to say: let’s stop the ‘fear narrative’. It was always wrong from the beginning. I constantly said it was wrong… It was wrong to scare people like that.
Additionally, leaked WhatsApp messages from the former Health Minister at the time, Matt Hancock, published in the Daily Telegraph in March 2023, confirm that fear and guilt were used:
Hancock: We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain. But the complications with that Brexit is taking the top line
Poole: Yep that’s what will get proper bahviour (sic) change
Hancock: When do we deploy the new variant …
Case: Ramping up messaging – the fear/guilt factor vital
The above are just two examples where senior Government Ministers recognised that fear and guilt was used as drivers for behavioural change of the UK population without their knowledge.
The existing literature
It is important to acknowledge that the above-mentioned psychological techniques were used on the U.K. population without their knowledge or consent, and that this in direct contradiction of long-established and carefully considered behavioural science advice which made clear that, in theory and practice, the consent of the public is paramount. According to a 2010 Institute for Government report:
The use of MINDSPACE (or other ‘nudge’ type policy tools) may require careful handling – in essence, the public need to give permission and help shape how such tools are used. (p10)
Continuing, the report states:
Policy-makers wishing to use these tools summarised in MINDSPACE need the approval of the public to do so. (p74)
Further literature supports that permission from the public is essential. David Halpern wrote in 2015:
If there is one great risk to the application of behavioural insights in policy, it is that the thread of public permission wears too thin. If governments, or indeed communities or companies, wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public to do so. (p365)
As there was no approval obtained, the options recommended and deployed were not in alignment with the principles of behavioural science.
It is important to highlight that the same kinds of techniques were used on children in relation to mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine uptake, with many techniques continuing into 2022. These techniques violated UNICEF’s recommendations from its ethical toolkit for behavioural science projects directed at children. The tool-kit states:
A core idea underlying the applied behavioural science approach is that interventions should not restrict choice and should transparently communicate project goals. When designing an intervention, practitioners should determine how transparent it will be to those affected by it. They should ensure that children and parents can easily opt out, and should design feedback mechanisms so that children and their parents can voice concerns, see the outcomes of their objections, and hold decision-makers to account.
The behavioural science literature also indicates a potential link between the misuse of behavioural psychology and an increased risk of suicide, stemming from an All Party Parliamentary Group Report on the Morse Review into the Loan Charge in 2020. One of the recommendations within the report demands:
An independent assessment and a suspension of HMRC’s use of behavioural psychology / behavioural insights, in light of the ongoing suicide risk to those impacted by the Loan Charge.
The literature highlights that approval from the public must be sought and maintained. Additionally, all behavioural science projects directed at children must have effective feedback mechanisms and methods of opting out, with decision makers able to be held accountable. There are also existing potential concerns that behavioural science may increase suicide levels. These important ethical aspects and safety signals appear to have been ignored. The lessons of history warn us that in times of existential crisis, whether real or only perceived, our ethics are at risk of being abandoned, and psychological knowledge can become misused by governments:
Under some historical conditions or circumstances and contexts, psychologists and psychological knowledge were in danger of being abused by political powers, largely for clandestine purposes, such as conducting torture or the persecution of political opponents. (Maercker A, Guski-Leinwand S, 2018)
It is of grave concern that the actions of the U.K. Government during the Covid era potentially fit into the category of abusing psychological knowledge and being absent of ethics, thus require serious investigation.
The impact of psychological pressure on informed consent
For the sake of brevity, I will not reiterate the multiple concerns already documented by others surrounding the consequences of the Government’s actions around lockdown, hospital discharges, school closures and mask mandates. I do, however, wish to highlight one extremely serious consequence that I believe has occurred as a direct result of the use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural insights on the unknowing public: by adopting the techniques used, the Government significantly and materially undermined, if not removed, the U.K. population’s ability to give valid informed consent to taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
According to Public Health England:
Consent must be obtained before starting any treatment or physical investigation or before providing personal care for a patient. This includes the administration of all vaccines.
Also,
It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting personal care, treatment or investigations.
Also,
For consent to immunisation to the (sic) valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion by an appropriately informed person who has the mental capacity to consent to the administration of the vaccines in question.
From the above, it is clear that for medical consent to be valid it must be given without coercion. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines coercion as:
The threat or use of punitive measures against states, groups or individuals in order for them to undertake or desist from specified actions. In addition to the threat of or limited use of force (or both), coercion may entail economic sanctions, psychological pressures, and social ostracism.
The psychological techniques used by the U.K. Government fall under that definition of coercion. If follows that according to Public Health England’s statements and for the general public at least, consent to immunisation was invalidated by the behaviour of the U.K. Government. It is also important to highlight that there have been serious injuries and death directly linked to the COVID-19 vaccine. Many of those injured or who have died would not have taken a vaccine if they had not been psychologically pressured, feared being ostracised socially and were given accurate information.
The removal of the general population’s ability to give informed medical consent is of the gravest concern, and a severe and dangerous consequence of using behavioural insights and psychological techniques on an unknowing public.
Conclusion
The need to hold tightly to professional ethics, in particular to the ethical principle of informed consent, is not just an ‘academic’ issue. It is a matter of practical and fundamental importance to responsible government.
According to David Halpern, “Behavioural insights, like any other form of knowledge, can be used for good or bad” (p348). It is my opinion that the use of behavioural insights and psychological techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt utilised by the U.K. Government since March 2020 has been unethical. The consequences are still unravelling but they appear to include serious damage to trust in government and its agencies, the NHS and the medical and scientific professions.
I propose that there be an immediate cessation of the use of all behavioural science techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt used by the Government pending an urgent, open and independent inquiry. This inquiry should also have as an objective the re-establishment of ethical frameworks necessary to protect the public and to provide accountability. I would welcome a discussion on this most important of matters.
Most respectfully
Dr. Christian Buckland
Doctor of Psychology in Psychotherapy and Counselling
FEAR. This 4-letter word probably explains everything big that’s happening.
BY BILL RICE, JR. | APRIL 28, 2023
Don’t ask me why, but I woke up this morning thinking about fear …. And how it’s really the fear of fear that explains every scary thing happening in our world today.
Fear of Covid is the most-recent example of how authorities and our most influential and important organizations profit from selling (and exaggerating) “threats” we should all fear.
Thirty years ago, few people recognized that the CDC or Fauci’s NIAID or the World Health Organization would obtain so much power over our lives.
There’s no need to recount the draconian “mitigation measures” these authorities created to compel mass compliance with their dictates.
But more citizens should probably think about how these people exploited the population’s irrational fear of a respiratory virus to achieve even more immense power and control.
The greatest fear of all is death. It follows logically that any group that tells you they can and will prevent your death is probably going to receive our blind support … which of course happened in Covid times.
These agencies actually cemented their power decades earlier.
RFK, Jr. argues in “The Real Anthony Fauci” that Anthony Fauci became one of the world’s most influential people in the early and mid 1980s when he leveraged “fear of AIDS” to dramatically increase the funding and influence of his obscure health agency.
Back then, the fear was everyone was at risk of dying from AIDS (or HIV).
Like 99 percent of society’s great “threats,” the notion that AIDS was a potential killer of everyone was preposterously wrong. AIDS is actually only a risk to promiscuous gay men and drug users who share dirty needles.
Celia Farber, a rare contrarian real journalist and author, has noted that the “death of (real) science” can be traced to Fauci’s “politicization” of science.
Until the Great AIDS Scare, science and medical bureaucracies didn’t have tremendous influence on all of our lives. Back then our great fear (kind of like today) was “Russia! Russia! Russia” except four decades ago it was “Soviet Union! Soviet Union! Soviet Union!”
Today’s Great Fear is respiratory viruses.
In 1984 (the year, not the novel), nobody thought alleged experts in some Alphabet Bureaucratic Agency would end up telling everyone 100 things they had to do … and 100 things we couldn’t do.
But fear is a powerful thing and that’s exactly what happened. Not only did it happen, hardly anyone questioned the power given to these “experts.” (And those who did question the authorized narrative …. suddenly had a lot to fear).
It’s still surreal to me that in the “Land of the Free” so few people fear the growth of the government …. or the growth of censorship.
Why did everyone suddenly become a huge fan of Bigger Government?
I’ve thought a good bit about how or why all the key organizations and corporations went along with the massive growth of government.
Again, fear must provide the answer.
One assumes Amazon, Wal-Mart, JP Morgan, the colleges, Facebook, Twitter and Google, etc. must have been motivated, in part, by fear as well.
What these companies probably all fear is getting on the wrong side of the world’s 900-pound gorilla – the federal government.
If one happens to fear some person or organization, one strategy might be to become friends or allies with this mean-spirited bully. If you are too scared to fight “City Hall” … go ahead and join forces with this behemoth. Which is exactly what happened … on a grand scale.
As it turns out, the people who lead mega companies and influential organizations also fear losing their power, status and wealth.
They also fear “competition.” If the government (via its policies and crony-benefitting decisions) can make it much less likely a competitor will take away your company’s market share, it probably makes economic sense to support this ally.
Once upon a time, political scientists defined this result as “fascism.” Fascism occurs when big government and big business join forces to protect and expand their influence.
I’ve also written a good bit about the power of “The Current Thing” (aka the “authorized narrative.”)
In today’s world, the vast majority of citizens possess a fear of going against the Current Thing. What these people really fear is being cast out out of the “herd” for challenging the thinking of the pack … or of the pack’s leader(s).
A key question for our times is who created all the false or dubious narratives in the first place.
I don’t think government officials birthed all of society’s fear-producing narratives. But government has the most power and, ultimately, matters most.
Put it this way, if George Soros, Bill Gates, BlackRock or the Davos club members are really the master puppeteer’s pulling the most-important strings, they still couldn’t do anything they want without an army of enforcers in government.
Two months ago I wrote a piece arguing that all the most important “truth-seeking” institutions in society now seemingly exist to conceal important truths. One of these institutions is “academia” or higher education.
But why did the key leaders of 99.9 percent of the colleges go along with 100-percent of the authorized Covid narratives?
Fear strikes again. The colleges were simply afraid to lose billions of dollars of research grants and federal funding, which they knew would happen if they bit the hand of the beast who was feeding them.
Which brings me to my final point of this meditation on fear: The people and organizations who rule the world are also motivated by great fears. Their fear is losing control, losing their lofty status in society’s hierarchy.
At some level, they must also fear legions of citizens going for those proverbial pitch forks and coming after them.
By now, practically every Substack author has opined on why Fox News executives decided to dismiss Tucker Carlson. (This despite the fact Carlson produced the most popular TV news talk show on the planet).
My best guess is that someone in some high place (inside this company or outside of it) had to be afraid of the scathing monologues Tucker was airing on a nightly basis.
Tucker’s segments were beginning to resonate with far too many people. And virtually all of his programs had one common theme:
“Folks,” argued Tucker, “It’s about time we started identifying the real Bad Guys who are ruining our world.”
What Tucker was really telling his sizable audience is that government – and all its sycophant cronies – were the real threat to our society.
So someone decided Tucker had to go.
Before this, someone decided that Jame O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, had to go.
Before that, someone figured out how to capture and neutralize The Drudge Report.
And before that someone decided that Julian Assange had to be locked up for life (for the crime of publishing true documents the Powers that Be didn’t want published.)
“Someone” also decided that social media and Big Tech had to heavily censor “dangerous misinformation” to “protect” people from the “harm” of free speech.
Until recent years, most Americans didn’t even know that free speech was that dangerous to them.
John and Nisha Whitehead just wrote an excellent essay which tells readers who is really afraid.
“The war on free speech is really a war on the right to criticize the government,” they wrote.
“… In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.”
That is, the government (and all its many cronies) are afraid of any speech that doesn’t square with its own fear-producing narratives.
In short, the government is afraid of We the People.
More specifically, the government is afraid of large numbers of citizens shedding their irrational fears. If and when this happens, the majority of citizens may no longer run to their Nanny to protect them.
Tucker Carlson referenced this in his first tweet since being dismissed by Fox News. This message has now been viewed by more than 74 million people … so clearly Carlson’s message resonates with massive numbers of people.
The key message: There’s a lot more of us than there are of them. One suspects the people who benefit from selling fear also know this … which must be what scares the hell out of them.
The victor in the existential battle currently being waged will be determined by what message resonates with the most people – the government’s message (that only the government can save us all) … or the message being shared by the dissidents our government clearly fears.
If we’re all going to continue to be motivated by fear, let’s hope more people at least begin to fear our real enemy … which (great news) I think is starting to happen.
Ex-US Army Psyops Expert: Fox News Fired Carlson to Maintain “Semi Lobotomized Quasi Retarded Population”
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | April 27, 2023
A former US Army psychological warfare officer says that Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox News because of the regime’s agenda to maintain an “uninformed semi lobotomized quasi retarded population.”
The remarks were made by US counter-terror expert Scott Bennett.
Carlson and Fox News “parted ways” on Monday with speculation still raging as to the specific reason why the network canned its highest rated and most popular host.
According to Bennett, Carlson posed too much of a threat to institutional power because he turned Americans into proper “researchers and thinkers”.
Carlson offered an “intellectualism, truthfulness, and an analytical depth that no other news personality has ever done in the history of the United States as far back as I can remember,” said Bennett.
Tucker needed to be “silenced” because he represented too big a threat to the “powers and principalities, institutions and agendas that seek an unenlightened uninformed semi lobotomized quasi retarded population that do not question, do not research, do not analyze but simply digest and follow instructions,” according to Bennett.
“Tucker Carlson also exposed the fraud and money laundering racketeering crimes of FTX and the Democrat Party in Ukraine involving the United States government. He exposed the US biochemical labs in Ukraine and their connection to the Democrat Party, President Barack Obama, Vice President Biden, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Bill Gates, and other US government agencies and pharmaceutical companies,” Bennett told Sputnik.
The ex-host’s anti-regime rhetoric “could no longer be tolerated by the corrupt American media and political establishment,” said Bennett, adding that his exit signals “the death of American media”.
The former US army psyops officer suggested that Senator Chuck Schumer had threatened to utilize the CIA and the FBI to deploy secret government operations against Tucker to get him off air unless he was fired.
Schumer previously called for Carlson to be taken off air after he broadcast footage showing the January 6 ‘riot’ leaders were actually allowed into the Capitol and chaperoned around by authorities.
As we highlighted earlier, one of the reasons behind Tucker’s dismissal is a lawsuit fired by former show producer Abby Grossberg, who claims she was bullied and subjected to sexist and anti-semitic harassment.
However, Grossberg’s own lawyer revealed that she has never even met Carlson.
Utah Woman Is First to Sue Merck Alleging Gardasil HPV Vaccine Caused Cervical Cancer
The Defender | April 26, 2023
A lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court alleges Merck’s Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine caused a young Utah woman to develop cervical cancer and other injuries.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Caroline Cantera, 25, by Wisner Baum (formerly Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman), is the first lawsuit to allege Gardasil can cause cervical cancer — the very cancer Merck asserts Gardasil prevents.
Cantera alleges New Jersey-based Merck & Co., Inc., and subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohme oversold Gardasil as a “cervical cancer vaccine” and downplayed known health risks to enhance sales.
Cantera’s attorneys filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina as part of the Gardasil multidistrict litigation (MDL). Dozens of federal Gardasil injury cases filed throughout the country have been consolidated in North Carolina.
According to the complaint, Merck never studied whether Gardasil prevents cervical cancer. Instead, the drugmaker tested Gardasil to determine if it could prevent the development of certain lesions, some of which are considered related to cancer — even though a majority of such lesions, even the most serious, regress on their own.
Public health officials have long recommended the Pap test as the most effective frontline public health response to prevent cervical cancer. Long before Gardasil was introduced to the market in 2006, cervical cancer rates had been plummeting by up to 80% with the implementation of routine Pap testing.
For those who are diagnosed with precancerous lesions or worse, cervical cancer is largely treatable if caught early.
Nonetheless, Merck sought “Fast Track” U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of Gardasil. Once approved, Merck engaged in a relentless marketing campaign falsely proclaiming that Gardasil was a “cervical cancer vaccine” and that any young girl vaccinated with Gardasil would become “one less” woman with cervical cancer, the lawsuit claims.
Cantera alleges Gardasil can actually increase the risk of cervical cancer. The Gardasil vaccine label specifically states, “Gardasil has not been evaluated for potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.”
Studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest the suppression of the HPV strains targeted by Gardasil (there are more than 200 HPV strains and Gardasil targets between four and nine strains) may actually open an ecological niche for replacement by more virulent strains, thus increasing the risk of cervical cancer.
Merck’s own studies show that for those previously exposed to HPV (a huge percentage of the population) when vaccinated, there is an up to 44.6% increased risk of developing advanced abnormal pre-cancer cells or worse.
The complaint also cites rapidly climbing cervical cancer rates among young women in countries where Gardasil has seen a high uptake. Studies also show young women who received the Gardasil vaccine are foregoing routine Pap screening due to a false sense of security that the HPV vaccine will protect them from cervical cancer.
Bijan Esfandiari, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Gardasil MDL, said:
“Merck has heavily promoted Gardasil as a cancer prevention vaccine even though the studies weren’t designed to answer that question, and its marketing has effectively resulted in young women foregoing Pap screening, the most reliable and proven method of preventing cervical cancer.
“Merck also hasn’t studied whether Gardasil can cause cancer, but we now have evidence it can increase the risk of cancer. Given Merck makes over $6 billion a year on Gardasil, it has little incentive to stop the deception.
“Through our litigation, we hope to expose the truth and hold Merck accountable for the harm it has done to Caroline and others.”
Cantera ‘had to face the painful fact that I will never be able to have children of my own’
Cantera was 19 years old when she received her first of three Gardasil shots. She said she agreed to receive Gardasil after being convinced by Merck’s prolific marketing that the vaccine is very safe and prevents cervical cancer.
Before receiving the HPV vaccine, Cantera was healthy and never had to go to the doctor for anything other than regular checkups and physical exams for sports. She received routine Pap tests, all of which were negative prior to Gardasil.
In high school, she played tennis, regularly went backpacking and loved spending time outdoors. She lived a happy, carefree life filled with friends and activities.
After her Gardasil injections, Cantera experienced unexpected fatigue, intense stomach aches and overall weakness throughout her body. The fatigue and occasional abdominal pain continued until she noticed that her period had lasted over four weeks.
After what she thought was an initial visit to a gynecologist, her life suddenly took a drastic and unexpected turn.
Cantera was diagnosed with stage four cervical cancer. She received multiple biopsies, CT scans and MRIs, had six rounds of chemotherapy, 30 radiation treatments, three brachytherapy treatments and saw countless doctors.
She was unable to go back to university for her final semester and struggled to finish the classwork necessary to receive her undergraduate degree.
Because most of her treatment was directed at her cervix, her ovaries were also affected, putting her into menopause in her 20s. She will never be able to have children of her own because her eggs are no longer viable due to the cancer treatment.
Cantera said:
“Every day since my diagnosis has been a battle. My body is still recovering from the toll of such intense treatments to fight cancer, and I live in constant fear that my cancer could come back at any time.
“On top of all that, I also had to face the painful fact that I will never be able to have children of my own. If Merck knew this vaccine can cause so much harm, why didn’t they warn people?”
In September 2022, Wisner Baum and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman on leave from Children’s Health Defense, filed their first wrongful death suit against Merck, alleging the drugmaker’s Gardasil HPV vaccine caused the death of 13-year-old Noah Tate Foley.
Wisner Baum and Kennedy have filed numerous lawsuits against Merck alleging the company knowingly conceals the adverse events associated with its Gardasil vaccine. These include:
- Victoria Trevisan (California)
- Merrick Brunker (California)
- Emma Sullivan (New Jersey)
- Ashley Dalton (Michigan)
- Abigail Stratton (South Carolina)
- Savannah Flores (Nevada)
- Korrine Herlth (Connecticut)
- Kayla Carrillo (California)
- Michael Colbath (California)
- Sahara Walker (Wisconsin)
- Zachariah Otto (California)
- Julia Balasco (Rhode Island)
While each case is unique, all of the plaintiffs agree that if Merck had told the truth about the known dangers associated with Gardasil, they never would have consented to the HPV vaccine.
If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation or call 855-948-5098.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Philip Zelikow’s Covid Coverup
By Richard Hugus | April 27, 2023
Last November Philip Zelikow and “the Covid Crisis Group” published a 352 page book, Lessons from a Covid War, An Investigative Report. The book went on sale April 23, 2023 and was launched April 24 in a five hour presentation at the National Academy of Medicine in Washington, DC. The launch of the book has lately gotten attention in the news. By its emphasis on war, the book inadvertently confirms recent evidence uncovered by Sasha Latypova snd Katherine Watt that the Covid psy-op was not a supposed public health emergency but a type of 5th generation warfare carried out by the US Department of Defense against US citizens, and much of the rest of the world, in collusion with many other governments.
Who is Philip Zelikow? He was the director of the so-called 9-11 Commission appointed by the G.W. Bush Administration in 2002. He was the editor of the resulting 9-11 Commission Report. He was and still is a University of Virginia history professor said to specialize in public myths and the effect of “catastrophic terrorism” in making abrupt changes in of the course of human history. As we know, both myth and terror were in full play in the 9-11 and the covid operations. Zelikow was among the neocons of the Project for a New American Century which said in its “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” September 2000, that it would take “a new Pearl Harbor” to motivate the American public to support the militarily aggressive US global hegemony that the Project called for. Exactly a year later, 9-11 provided the neocon-controlled US government with a pretext for just such aggression against a list of Arab and Muslim countries that did not threaten US hegemony, but did happened to be enemies of the state of Israel, which the neocons happen to adamantly support. So many coincidences!
Twenty years later, Zelikow was called in for another coverup, this time unofficially. Under Zelikow’s guidance 9-11 was painted as a series of tragic failures by the US government, the Pentagon, NORAD, and US intelligence agencies to either predict or prevent the hijacking of four passenger airliners by 19 nefarious hijackers. Using the same formula again, Zelikow assembled a group of 34 academic, medical, and government apologists — the “Covid Crisis Group” — to write the authoritative report on the US handling of the “Covid 19 pandemic.” Once again. the entire US government was totally blindsided. It was found woefully inept, incompetent, and completely unprepared to deal with this terrible out-of-nowhere attack.
Zelikow and his hand-picked authors leave no stone unturned in pointing out the failures of almost all the measures a helpless Uncle Sam took to deal with the “pandemic.” The problems listed by Zelikow’s mainstream mouthpieces were: “operational challenges,” lack of preparedness, “policy failures,” ignorance of the source of SARS CoV-2, the failure of Trump’s leadership in “Operation Warp Speed,” a ”fragmented health care system,” and “poor communication” which led to poor “vaccine uptake” and a failure to prevent people being led astray by “misinformation.” The solution offered by the Crisis Group: organize from the top down, globally, with a single authority, for the next predicted “pandemic,” much like what we’re hearing from the World Heath Organization. This is not new thinking. It’s a copy and paste of the globalist agenda.
The strategy for covering up an attack by the US government on US citizens is to make it look like the government was a victim of the attack, not the perpetrator. That lie is facilitated by what sounds like a tough critique of government incompetence, crafted by the same people who were involved in the crime. This is like letting a murderer off the hook by hearing nothing but his apology for serious and reprehensible failures in stopping the murder, and forgetting that he committed the murder.
Of course, Zelikow’s exhaustive report passed over the pre-planning, the trail of predictive pharma patents, the economic devastation, the gigantic upward transfer of wealth, the government corruption, the psychological harm, the extensive injury to human health, the thousands of deaths caused by the US “response” to C-19 — all of it deliberate. The report starts with the premise that a never-before-seen virus attacked us all at once and nobody knew what to do about it. This is more or less how Zelikow and his previous stable of authors said 9-11 happened: our innocent nation was attacked from out of the blue; we were caught totally unaware. It is interesting to see how the public myth and the “catastrophic event” intertwine. Zelikow is not just an academic observing that catastrophic terror changes history. He is an advisor to people who want to change history by creating catastrophic terror. He almost certainly advises on how to do it. Not only has he nicely tied his two academic theses together, he has won handsome rewards and respectability, AND completed the major deception of being the one to write the official history of the operations his handlers planned. Zelikow is the consummate insider. Had he not appeared with this coverup masquerading as an earnest critique, we might have missed seeing that the neocons had to be involved in the covid operation just as they were in 9-11. The Project for a New American Century was not a plan for a robust American empire. Just the opposite. It was a plan to use the US and its people as pawns in what was really the Project for a New World Order. America’s contribution to that was to let itself be robbed physically, morally, and spiritually by a parasite class whose goals for control of the world can’t even be understood as human. Indeed, transhumanism is a stated goal of these people.
Zelikow has tipped his hat with this monstrosity of establishment lies. He has announced that he is involved, despite no one asking, and we can infer from this that the neocons were also involved. “The wicked run when no one is chasing them,” says the proverb. With all the power the neocons wield, most notable today in the Nuland- and Blinken-led attack on Russia, the neocons must of course be connected with the would-be masters at Davos. How clever this clique must think they are to have fooled the whole world. With such arrogance, how hard the fall.
Owners of OxyContin Maker Gave $19 Million to Institute That Shaped Federal Opioid Policy
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 25, 2023
As the opioid crisis in the U.S. grew, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, an advisory group that helped shape the federal government’s response to the crisis, accepted millions of dollars in donations from the Sackler family — owners of Purdue Pharma, the producers of OxyContin.
The donations occurred despite ongoing legal battles — and a number of settlements — involving Purdue Pharma in recent years, and as other public health entities, including the World Health Organization (WHO), severed ties to the drugmaker, The New York Times reported.
The new revelations come as questions emerge about the lack of transparency regarding how money from several opioid-related settlements has been used by state governments, and the federal government’s lack of oversight in connection to this issue.
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 564,000 Americans died as a result of opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2020. The opioid epidemic costs the U.S. economy approximately $78.5 billion each year, according to the CDC.
Strong ties between the National Academies and the Sacklers
Several members of the Sackler family, including Dr. Raymond Sackler and his wife, Beverly Sackler, the couple’s foundation, and Dame Jillian Sackler and her husband Arthur, contributed about $19 million to the National Academies since 2000, according to the Times.
The National Academies’ treasurer report for 2021 stated that these funds were invested and had grown to more than $31 million.
The donations, however, appeared to remain under the radar for members of the National Academies — and the general public — until recently.
According to the Times, the Sackler donations emerged as “an internal issue for the advisory group in 2019, when members of the governing council were briefed about the money” and were reportedly “outraged.”
After internal meetings, the National Academies “quietly removed the Sackler name” from conferences and awards the family had sponsored.
Also in 2019, an article in The BMJ stated that the National Academies had “not disclosed that one of its presidents, and members of a panel it convened to advise on prescribing opioids, had recent links to the drug industry.”
Potential conflicts of interest between Purdue Pharma and public health organizations are not limited to the National Academies. The WHO, for instance, was accused of such a conflict of interest and as a result, in 2019, retracted two opioid policy reports.
However, the Times reported that, unlike the WHO, “the National Academies has not conducted a public review to determine if the Sackler donations influenced its policymaking, despite issuing two major reports that influenced national opioid policy.”
One of those reports, issued in 2011, continues to be used by federal public health agencies as the basis for opioid policy decisions — even though, according to the Times, the report is “now largely discredited.”
According to the Times, the report “described chronic pain that limited function and cost the nation billions of dollars in lost salary and wages.” Later estimates from the CDC, “defined chronic pain by different categories of severity, saying the condition affects 7% to 21% of Americans.”
“Regulatory, legal, educational and cultural barriers inhibit the medically appropriate use of opioid analgesics,” the report argued.
The report claimed that approximately 100 million Americans suffered from chronic pain, “an estimate that proved to be highly inflated,” the Times stated.
However, this report helped influence aggressive opioid sales campaigns on the part of drugmakers and influenced the approval of “at least one highly potent opioid” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The 2011 report was issued even as the White House stated that the U.S. was facing an opioid addiction crisis.
In the years preceding the publication of the report, Purdue Pharma lobbied for legislation — which passed in 2010 — that would recognize pain as a significant public health problem. Purdue also called for the National Academies to issue similar recognition. Meetings between Purdue Pharma lobbyists and members of the academies followed.
A 2014 investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today found that within three years of working on the report, nine of the 19 people on the panel that produced it had financial connections to makers of narcotic painkillers.
According to the Times, the report did not disclose any conflicts of interest involving its author — nor did a 2014 article published by the National Academies in the JAMA journal, explaining how the committee arrived at the “100 million Americans” figure.
Several members of the committee that produced the 2011 report directly or indirectly received money from Purdue Pharma — including Dr. Richard Payne, then-president of the American Pain Society, who received more than $900,000, and Myra Christopher, whose nonprofit received $934,770.
Separately, in 2016 — months after the National Academies received a $10 million donation from members of the Sackler family and with opioid-related deaths on the rise — the FDA, under pressure from Congress, called on the Academies to “form a committee to issue new recommendations on opioids,” according to the Times.
Dr. Robert Califf, FDA deputy commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco in 2016 (now FDA commissioner), turned to the National Academies for guidance. Notably, Califf was elected to the National Academy of Medicine later that year.
According to the Times, Califf cited the “100 million” figure in an article he and other FDA officials published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which stated that the National Academies bring “an unbiased and highly respected perspective on these issues that can help us revise our framework.”
Members of the committee subsequently formed had multiple conflicts of interest, which were first identified by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a 2016 letter to Dr. Victor Dzau, president of the National Academy of Medicine. The BMJ also examined those conflicts of interest, in a 2018 article.
One member of the committee, for instance, who had received funding from Purdue, characterized opioid addiction using the term “pseudoaddiction.”
Ultimately, four members of the committee were replaced, but the final document produced by the committee remains a cornerstone of the opioid policy currently pursued by the FDA and Califf.
The “100 million” figure was previously invoked by then-FDA commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg in 2014, upon the agency’s approval of a “controversial and potent opioid called Zohydro,” according to the Times. Zohydro was later pulled from the market.
And in 2012, Purdue’s lawyers used the “100 million” figure as part of a Senate inquiry, citing it as evidence that pain was “untreated or under-treated,” the Times reported.
According to the Times, this is not the only instance in which the National Academies have “come under criticism for lapses over disclosing conflicts of interest,” citing similar instances involving reports on biotechnology, genetically engineered crops and pharmaceutical pricing.
Similarly, donations that were provided by the Sacklers to other institutions drew scrutiny — and in several instances, action on the part of those entities.
For instance, Tufts University released a review of possible conflicts of interest pertaining to pain research funded by Purdue Pharma, as part of a broader relationship with the institution which included Purdue executives delivering lectures to Tufts students.
According to the Times, Tufts and other academic institutions, such as Brown University, have redirected financial donations received from the Sacklers, now using them “to address the prevention or treatment of addiction.”
Billions of dollars in settlements from opioid producers
Multiple pharmaceutical companies and drug store chains have reached settlements stemming from their production and marketing of opioids and painkillers — and their subsequent contribution to the opioid addiction crisis.
Information provided by OpioidSettlementTracker.com reveals that these settlements involve companies such as Johnson & Johnson ($26 billion), the “big three” drugstore chains — CVS, Walgreens and Walmart ($13.8 billion), Teva ($4.25 billion), Allergan, now part of AbbVie ($2.37 billion), Mallinckrodt ($1.7 billion) and Endo ($450 million).
According to the Times, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine “continued to accept funds from some members of the Sackler family, including those involved with Purdue Pharma,” even as the opioid crisis raged on and its impacts on American society became increasingly apparent.
The donations totaled approximately $19 million — but the National Academies “have kept quiet” about their decision to accept these funds, the Times reported, adding that they have “largely avoided such scrutiny” and continue to advise the federal government on opioids and painkillers.
This is despite the fact that Purdue Pharma has twice pled guilty to federal criminal charges connected to its marketing of OxyContin, in 2007 and 2020, and has faced a spate of lawsuits. While none of those lawsuits has gone to trial, many of those cases have been settled out of court.
Purdue Pharma continued to promote OxyContin to doctors as recently as 2018. By then, the Sackler family had amassed an estimated $10.7 billion from sales of the drug. However, the family has repeatedly denied any responsibility for the nation’s opioid crisis.
The National Academy of Medicine — formerly known as the Institute of Medicine — is a nongovernmental institution chartered by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to independently advise the nation on issues related to science and medicine, according to the Times. New members are elected each year.
Despite the nongovernmental status of the National Academies, the White House and Congress rely on its advice to help shape the federal response to the opioid crisis. This advice is delivered via policy recommendations, the drafting of reports and the organizing of expert panels, the Times reports.
Moreover, according to the Times, the National Academies “receives 70 percent of its budget from federal funding.” Some of the remaining 30%, however, comes from prescription drug makers like Purdue Pharma.
In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $225 million settlement with Purdue Pharma regarding a program through which Purdue representatives “intensified their marketing of OxyContin to extreme, high-volume prescribers … causing healthcare providers to prescribe opioids for uses that were unsafe, ineffective, and medically unnecessary, and that often led to abuse and diversion.”
However, other lawsuits against Purdue Pharma regarding OxyContin have taken a circuitous route through the courts. The same October 2020 DOJ statement also announced an $8.3 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma for its role in perpetuating the opioid epidemic.
At the time, the Times noted “it is unlikely the company will end up paying anything close to the $8 billion negotiated in the settlement deal” because “it is in bankruptcy court and the federal government will have to take its place in a long line of creditors.”
This prediction appears to have been confirmed by later developments in the case.
A Sept. 1, 2021, settlement would have required members of the Sackler family to pay $4.5 billion over nine years to resolve civil lawsuits related to the opioid crisis, but did not require the family to admit any responsibility for the crisis. It also included a compensation fund that would pay victims of the opioid epidemic between $3,500 and $48,000.
Immunity would extend to members of the family and to hundreds of foundations, trusts, business partners, attorneys, lobbyists, Purdue subsidiaries and other entities. Purdue would be dissolved and re-established as a public benefit corporation, with profits from sales of OxyContin and other products used to fund addiction treatment and prevention programs.
As part of that settlement, Dr. Richard Sackler, the longtime president and board member of Purdue Pharma, was deposed — in what may be the only instance where he or other family members have testified under oath in relation to the opioid crisis.
Throughout the eight-hour deposition, Sackler denied any wrongdoing on the part of his company or his family.
In December 2021, a federal court threw out this settlement on the basis that the bankruptcy court hearing the case lacked the authority to grant the Sacklers future legal immunity.
In March 2022, the Purdue settlement amount increased to $6 billion after nine state attorneys general agreed to drop their objection to an immunity deal, with the additional funds to be directed to programs designed to tackle the opioid crisis. However, the immunity provided to the Sacklers would remain in place for civil cases.
The federal government would still be able to pursue criminal charges against members of the Sackler family if it wished, NPR reported.
However, some plaintiffs challenged his settlement. They included Canadian local governments and First Nations; two mothers of sons who died of opioid overdoses; and the U.S. Trustee Program, an arm of the DOJ responsible for overseeing the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees.
In April 2022, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held a hearing connected to these appeals. Few developments have followed since. The case is still pending and may ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.
The $225 million settlement reached in 2020 with the DOJ remains in place. Separately, the Sackler family contributed $75 million to Oklahoma in 2019 as part of a settlement, and reached a $24 million settlement with Kentucky in 2015.
Questions over how opioid settlement funds are being allocated
Despite settlements totaling many billions of dollars, questions remain over how these funds are actually being allocated — and about the federal government’s lack of oversight on this matter.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the Biden administration “promised to play a key role in ensuring opioid settlement funds went toward tackling the nation’s addiction crisis,” including a plan to appoint an “opioid crisis accountability coordinator.”
However, according to the KFF, “as billions of dollars actually start to flow and state and local leaders make crucial decisions on how to spend the more than $50 billion windfall to tackle this entrenched public health crisis, the federal government has gone mostly quiet.”
For instance, no opioid crisis accountability coordinator has been hired. KFF also notes that “The Office of National Drug Control Policy has not released public statements about the settlements in over a year” and “the settlement funds are mentioned just twice in a 150-page national strategy to reduce drug trafficking and overdose deaths.”
Even though, according to KFF, “the federal government is not legally obligated to engage in the discussion,” as lawsuits against opioid makers have been filed by states, “there is an expectation that the federal government, including the nation’s leading agencies on mental health and addiction, should play a role.”
Parallels are drawn with previous settlements with Big Tobacco. According to KFF, tobacco companies agreed in 1998 “to pay states billions annually for as long as they continued selling cigarettes.”
However, no restrictions were placed on how the funds would be used, “and much of it went to plugging state budget gaps, filling potholes, and even subsidizing tobacco farmers.” KFF notes: “Today, less than 3% of the annual payouts support anti-smoking programs.”
Questions about transparency at the state level are also raised by KFF, which states that “governments are required to report only on the 15% of the money that can be used for things unrelated to the epidemic, like offsetting budget shortfalls or fixing old roads,” and noting that as of March 28, “only three states and counties had filed such reports.”
The same KFF report, citing OpioidSettlementTracker.com, notes that “only 12 states have committed to detailed public reporting of all their spending.”
Even though the opioid settlements, unlike previous settlements with tobacco companies, contain a provision that at least 85% of the money states will receive must be spent on “opioid-related expenses,” defining such expenses has proven to be vague and confusing.
For example, KFF states, citing real-world examples, that “defining those concepts depends on stakeholders’ views — and state politics. To some, it might mean opening more treatment sites. To others, buying police cruisers.”
Moreover, “enforcement of the 85% standard is, oddly, left to the companies that paid out the money,” KFF stated, adding that “They are unlikely to be vigilant,” according to legal experts.
It also remains unclear whether the federal government will still attempt to claim repayment for Medicaid expenses that have been linked to opioid addiction, according to KFF. In 2019, these expenses were estimated to total $23 billion.
That same year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services attempted to recoup part of Oklahoma’s $270 million settlement with Purdue Pharma. However, it remains unclear if there will be a broader push on the part of the federal government for such repayments.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Featured Video
Roosevelt’s Partnership with Stalin
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
“Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons from history that will destroy your trust in the CIA
By Kit | OffGuardian | July 20, 2018
… At every corner, we are urged to simply believe what we are told. Whether it is about believing Porton Down and MI6 about “novichok”, or believing the White Helmets about Sarin, or believing the FBI about “collusion”, we are presented with no facts, just assertions from authority. Those who question those assertions are deemed “bots” at best or “traitors” at worst.
Well here, fellow traitors, are the Top Ten reasons to question anything and everything the CIA – or any intelligence agency – has ever told you. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran Beat Back The Greater Israel Project
- Roosevelt’s Partnership with Stalin
- Strategic Ambiguity (If We Must)
- Finland shreds nuclear weapons ban
- Kiev turns to ‘systematic killing’ of Zaporozhye plant staff – Russia’s nuclear chief
- Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)
- Israel’s censor silenced 5,700 reports in 2025
- After US-Iran deal, Israeli minister threatens war on Syria ‘sooner or later’
- When the Iran War is over: Why the West Bank may be Netanyahu’s next front
- Israeli forces launch fresh ground incursions into Syria’s Quneitra, interrogate locals
- If Americans Knew
- What Ceasefire? Israel Has Now Killed Over 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza Since October
- U.S. Whole-of-Government Takeover by Israel
- Netanyahu’s Mouthpieces Turn on Trump, Revealing a Deeper Israeli Ingratitude
- Senate wants to force US to share sensitive intel with Israel
- Trump ended his idiotic Iran war. Good.
- Khanna Becomes First in Congress to Sign ‘Peace Pledge’ Promising to Reject AIPAC Funds
- Look who’s losing it over Trump’s Iran deal
- Israel has killed over 1,000 Gazans during 8-month “ceasefire” – Daily Update
- REVEALED: Former Top DEA Official Says Israel Spies on US Law Enforcement
- What would happen if US actually cut off military aid to Israel?
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
Aletho News 