Davos Leaders Collude to Force Permanent Global Vaccine Infrastructure
By Jefferey Jaxen | January 19, 2023
What is Davos? The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting happens each year in the alpine Swiss ski resort town. Each year global leaders, elected and unelected, gather to collude on policy initiatives and hot button topics concerning humanity overwhelmingly without the consent of the people.
Intel coming out of this year’s meeting has had a more pressing, alarmist nature from the self-proclaimed global elite minders. Don’t worry, the meeting was still filled with the annual hypocrisy we are used to. Squadrons of ‘unsustainable,’ carbon-emitting private jets still flew in at will. Fleets of non-electric cars openly chauffeured the climate alarmist around while they preached about the end of gas vehicles and individual car ownership… for the planet of course. But lets turn to moves by the medical–industrial complex.
Coming off the back of a rushed Covid shot that failed to stop transmission and whose harms and shortcomings are still unraveling in the public conversation, the ‘global leaders’ of Davos used the forum to do what they always do in the uncomfortable spotlight – double down on agendas.
After some of the biggest, concerted global protests in a century against lockdowns and the digital Covid vaccine passports used by governments to enforce them, a call was made to expand such tools of restriction.
Former UK PM Tony Blair of Iraq war criminal fame apparently received his new marching orders speaking passionately at Davos for the implementation of a ‘national digital infrastructure.’
For ‘the vaccines coming down the line [that] will be multiple shots,’ for ‘vaccines [in general]’ and for ‘a pandemic’ Blair stated you need a proper digital infrastructure to know ‘who’s been vaccinated and who hasn’t.’
Founded in Davos by the Gates Foundation, the UK-based Wellcome Trust, the WEF and other governments, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations or CEPI was a central player in global Covid vaccine development efforts.
They now have a new ‘100 day goal’ which has been embraced by the G7 and G20 nations according to a Davos speech attended by Pfizer’s CEO Bourla, Blair and others.
To ‘accelerate vaccine development over and above what was achieved in 2020’ and to be able to deliver vaccines for new threats within 100 days.
So the idea again would be to sidestep proper safety testing to put massive mutation pressure on a new circulating virus or pathogen by vaccinating in a middle of an ongoing pandemic – something Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has continually warned against.
CEPI’s goal to take Covid’s fast tracking vaccine development precedent and fast track it further has been aided, intentionally or unintentionally, by the newly enacted FDA Modernization Act 2.0 which allows drug and vaccine developers to rely upon computer modeling and testing with virtual patients in their safety assessments of new products to convince regulators they’ve been ‘de-risked.’
While the Davos crowd, along with many others in the public, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, still believe the official narrative that the rushed Covid shot was a wild, safe and effective success, a growing critical mass continues to expose the truth.
Meanwhile, the FDA still doesn’t have ‘robust’ data from Pfizer or Moderna on their mRNA Covid shot product’s ability to cause potentially deadly heart inflammation.
A 2021 letter by the FDA to Pfizer gave the company until October 2025 to turn in their study looking at that piece which public health leaders and agencies will take, at face value, as the final word on the subject. Despite the foot-dragging by regulators, members of the public and medical community have filled the vacuum with actual data and warnings.
Top UK cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra made history becoming one of the BBC’s most watched segments of the last two years [27.1M view on Twitter] warning about the myocarditis risk live on-air along with its role in the soaring number of excess deaths – the highest in 50 years according to the BBC.
Will the public accept digital restrictions on their life again in the form of vaccine passports?
Will the public accept new, multi-dose vaccines unpinned by even less safety testing and transparency than the mRNA Covid shots?
Are vaccine deaths being disguised as virus deaths?
By Professor Roger Watson and Dr Niall McCrae | TCW Defending Freedom | January 18, 2023
A new Covid-19 variant has appeared: XBB.1.5 (or ‘Kraken’, for the fear factor). This could explain why deaths are surging again, with Japan recording about 400 daily, and Australia (despite being in the height of summer) in the dozens. But are people really dying from the latest strain of coronavirus?
Excess mortality is highest in countries with the highest rates of Covid-19 vaccination. Correlation is not causation, but only the wilfully blind are describing this human toll as ‘baffling’. Ordinary people do not need scientific expertise to join the dots. At the very least, the authorities should be investigating this unprecedented rise in mortality as a possible iatrogenic disaster (ie caused by medical treatment, like thalidomide).
While there is growing public awareness of the lethality of the mRNA injections, the scientific orthodoxy is continuing to suppress the truth. In reports showing an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease after vaccination, researchers always moderate the message by stating that the benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the risks. However, many publications do not even consider the vaccines as a cause of illness or death.
Our editor alerted us to the article Covid Leading Cause of Death Among Law Enforcement for Third Year in Medscape. The data for this study of police officers across the US were taken from an annual report issued by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, titled 2022 End-Of-Year Preliminary Law Enforcement Officers Fatalities Report.
The report claims that in the past year 70 officers died in the line of duty of causes related to Covid-19. The good news is that this is ‘down dramatically from 2021, when 405 officer deaths were attributed to Covid’, but this was still a significant loss of front-line personnel, surpassing the number of deaths from firearms-related incidents.
The authors of the original report attribute the decline in deaths to ‘reduced infection rates and the broad availability and use of vaccinations’. However, this putative triumph of the Covid-19 vaccine needs more scrutiny than afforded by Medscape writer Lisa O’Mary.
In the original report we were keen to know how many law enforcement officers had died of other deadly infections. We anticipated influenza, meningitis, gastroenteritis and septicaemia among other potential killers, but none of these are mentioned in the report despite exposure on duty. We also wondered what the ‘background noise’ was in terms of how many law enforcement officers had died in total during the preceding years whether in the line of duty or not. Sadly, this figure was not reported either.
Covid-19, uniquely amongst infectious diseases, is being recorded as a cause of death in the line of duty but it is not clear why. We do not have any doubts about the bona fides of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and we do not, at face value, question their use of the numbers with which they have been provided. What is clear is that, like most of the public sector in the US (and the UK) they have fallen for the Covid-19 narrative and been willing participants in the ‘fear porn’ that has gripped so many otherwise well-meaning organisations.
We see several problems with the researchers’ claim that low Covid-19 mortality in officers was due to the vaccine. The first problem is the distinction between the definition of deaths ‘with’ as opposed to ‘of’ Covid-19 and the possible attenuation of the Covid-19 virus over time. Then, we are not informed in the report, and data seem unavailable, about the extent to which Covid-19 testing was or is still being carried out. If there was a significant reduction in Covid-19 testing between 2021 and 2022 that would be a significant confounding factor.
A bold claim about the success of the vaccine rollout would need, at least, to show how many law enforcement officers were vaccinated. Even then the outcome would not provide much insight into cause (vaccination) and effect (death from Covid-19).
It is not clear how many US law enforcement officers are vaccinated. There were indications that compulsory vaccination was going to be introduced for law enforcement officers. But there was also evidence that the law enforcement unions ‘pushed back’ against the idea. In fact, uptake of Covid-19 vaccines was so low amongst law enforcement officers that hundreds were reported to be dying and that, according to the Washington Post, they were a danger to the public. Therefore, it seems incongruous that, on the one hand, law enforcement officers are a public hazard due to their low Covid-19 vaccination status, and on the other hand have their own lives saved ‘dramatically’ as a result of the Covid-19 vaccines.
There is a more serious question that the researchers failed to ask themselves. Is it possible that some of the 70 officers dying in 2022, and some of the 405 in the year of the initial vaccine rollout, were victims of the Covid-19 vaccine? Consider, for example, an officer who is hospitalised for breathlessness, and is discovered to have dangerous blood clots. On admission he tests positively on a PCR test, which is notoriously prone to false positives. If this officer were to die, he would be added to the Covid-19 mortality figures. This is not fantasy, but the reality of how the pandemic has been perpetuated over the last three years – with the collusion of the scientific community.
Plain English guide to the pandemic treaty
By Libby Klein | Reclaim Ethical Medicine | January 17, 2023
There are some absolute pearlers buried in the Pandemic treaty:
- Gain of function research is on for young and old – we must not be inhibited by red tape, just get on with it.
- Global sharing of patient data, specimens and pathogens is also the order of the day. Feel free to pick and choose which bits of existing international law to observe.
- We must have a singular focus on vaccines as the answer to everything. We will target the vulnerable in the name of equity, especially in developing nations, with fast tracked, under-tested new drugs – and only give them biased information in favour of taking the treatment.
Oh, and remember these key points:
- The WHO is central to everything.
- The WHO owns the science.
- The WHO controls raw materials, production, allocation, distribution and financing of pandemic products.
- The WHO will decide what restrictions to impose on you to address climate change because climate change might affect your health.
- The WHO decides what medical treatments are allowed, and which are banned.
- The WHO decides what is allowed to be spoken, and stamps out voices of dissent.
I hope you don’t believe me. No sane person would. Read for yourself the ‘Conceptual Zero Draft” of the proposed pandemic treaty. There’s a plain English guide here:
Please read it, then tell at least one person about this stupid treaty every day, until it goes away.
$1,000,000 to forecast Vaccine Misinformation narratives
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 16, 2023
On 20 October 2022, the CDC published a grant opportunity to develop a public health tool to predict the virality of vaccine misinformation narratives. The application closed a few days ago.
The purpose of the $1,000,000 grant is “to conduct research to develop and pilot a predictive model and tool to aid…in identifying emerging vaccine misinformation about recommended vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, that is likely to spread and have a high potential for impacting vaccine confidence”. It will enable public health agencies to identify misinformation before it spreads or impacts people’s health decisions.
According to the proposal, evidence for the negative impact of misinformation continues to grow. Therefore, this proposal has the potential to impact the Healthy People 2030 scheme by ensuring people get vaccinated. Healthy People 2030 sounds and looks suspiciously like something from Agenda 2030 but equally this might just be someone jumping on the bandwagon. However, one of the developmental objectives is to “increase the proportion of immunization information systems that track adult immunizations across their lifespan” which sounds a lot like vaccine passports. Maybe not but unfortunately these things need keeping an eye on these days.
The CDC estimates that “COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation caused $50-$300 million per day in additional medical costs, monetized lives lost and morbidity, and economic costs”. Therefore, they want this new tool to increase vaccination rates and disseminate accurate scientific messages.
There are 3 phases to successfully complete the proposal:
- Phase 1 – Develop a predictive model that identifies misinformation. To do this they will look at old data to find topics (such as vaccine safety and fertility), the types of people sharing this information and the relationship to societal concerns (e.g. personal liberty);
- Phase 2 – Develop a tool that can be used to prioritise the response to misinformation.
- Phase 3 – Pilot and evaluate the tool (that can be used at federal, state, local, tribal and territorial public health agency levels)
Now, I’m all for getting rid of misinformation. In an ideal world I just want to be reading facts, more facts with a few more facts sprinkled on top. However, this isn’t an ideal world and unfortunately, over the last few years, much of the misinformation has come from the CDC itself.
So a ‘Minority Report’ style system that will identify vaccine misinformation pre-crime and eliminate it before it can get out will only add to public distrust.
A Soviet-style public health propaganda set-up is not going to increase vaccine take-up. The only way to do that is to provide transparent data and allow hypotheses to formulate. These can quite easily be shut-down with accurate and open data.
What does increase vaccine hesitancy, is not having a truly independent body to analyse pharmaceutical data and then trying to bury that data for 75 years. Misinforming the public that they are going to die without a vaccine was the most harmful thing they could have done to trust in public health. Along with the suppression of adverse event signals, harms and deaths. However rare they may or may not be, by hiding just one of these causes the public to question what else is being hidden.
So I would like to claim the $1,000,000 to reduce vaccine misinformation with the following steps:
- Firstly produce a product that actually does what it is supposed to do;
- Conduct proper trials that look at short, medium and long term risks;
- Create a truly independent body that not only analyses the data it’s provided with but tests the products themselves;
- Remove propaganda such as ‘95% effective’ or ‘safe and effective’;
- Don’t conduct studies on how to manipulate the population into taking vaccines;
- Don’t force anybody to take a vaccine (by use of the psychological techniques above or through vaccine passports);
- Don’t use fear to convince people they are going to die without being vaccinated;
- Don’t supress safety-signals;
- Don’t gaslight the vaccine injured or families with members killed by vaccines;
- Remove the product from the market as soon as any safety signals, injuries or deaths occur. Explain clearly and openly what has been found and why the product has been removed;
- Don’t label anybody concerned about big pharma corruption or vaccine safety a conspiracy theorist or worse.
There you go. You don’t need any fancy and expensive systems to get people vaccinated. Just follow the steps above. But unfortunately, if your product isn’t up to scratch, you won’t make any money. You can send my $1,000,000 cheque in the post. Thanks.
Did I miss any points? And is it too late anyway? Has the amount of public health misinformation eroded away all trust, never to be regained again?
Campaign funded by Pfizer and Moderna lobbyists sent Twitter weekly lists of tweets to censor
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | January 16, 2023
The Public Good Projects (PGP), a nonprofit that has developed several projects to fight so-called Covid “misinformation,” received $1,275,000 from the Pfizer and Moderna lobbying group, Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), to create a content moderation campaign that influenced Twitter’s Covid misinformation rules. As part of this campaign, PGP sent Twitter lobbyists and content moderators weekly emails containing lists of tweets to censor.
Journalist Lee Fang published one of the weekly emails that Twitter received from PGP as part of the latest release of the Twitter Files — collections of internal Twitter communications that have exposed the censorship relationships Twitter had with government agencies and other powerful groups before Elon Musk took over.
The email shows Todd O’Boyle, a senior manager on Twitter’s Public Policy team, sharing “this week’s misinfo report” from PGP. The February 24, 2022 email included a list of top trends the PGP had seen during the week and two attached lists. According to Fang, one of the lists contained tweets the PGP wanted Twitter to take down and the other list contained tweets that it wanted Twitter to verify.

Despite flagging two trends in this weekly misinfo report, the PGP admitted that articles related to the first trend “do not contain misinformation themselves but are using the news to further prove the CDC is untrustworthy.”
The PGP also acknowledged that the second trending article it flagged, which described a German health insurance company official suggesting that reports of healthcare visits for vaccine side effects may be severely undercounted, “is difficult to fact check because it does note that this data includes any side effect, not just serious side effects.”
Fang said many of the PGP’s emails to Twitter focused on independent news outlet ZeroHedge which was banned from Twitter in January 2020 and reinstated in June 2020.
Fang also noted that this campaign flagged a tweet from senior Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) scientist Stephanie Seneff that questioned vaccine passports on the basis that vaccinated and unvaccinated people have “roughly the same capacity to carry, shed and transmit the virus.”

Additionally, Fang shared a screenshot of a BIO tax form that revealed part of the funding ($883,000) it provided to PGP for this campaign.


The PGP campaign is called “Stronger” and, according to Fang, it worked with Twitter to craft the platform’s content moderation rules around Covid misinformation, helped Twitter create content moderation bots, and helped Twitter select which public health accounts got verification.
Stronger says its goal is to “stop the spread of misinformation” and its website contains a page that encourages people to flag misinformation to Twitter and other platforms.

This page also contains a form for users to submit alleged misinformation to Stronger.
“Paste the link to a post, account, or website below, and the Stronger team will report it to the appropriate platform,” the form states.

Previous campaigns from the Public Good Project have involved recruiting pro-vaccine keyboard warriors to mass report anti-vaccine social media posts.
Fang’s revelations are the latest of several examples of those affiliated with Pfizer pushing for the censorship of content that questions or criticizes Covid vaccines.
Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb complained to Twitter in August 2021 that it was promoting an article from journalist Alex Berenson. A few days after this complaint, Berenson was banned from Twitter. Twitter also censored another tweet after it was flagged by Gottlieb in August 2021.
Meanwhile, Pfizer’s CEO has branded those who share what he deems to be misinformation about vaccines as “criminals.”
WHO Sneak Attack
CHD.TV: “This is the big one. They’re going for broke… I think we may only have potentially until May before one or both of these documents gets voted on” — Meryl Nass, M.D. and James Corbett continue their discussion on the WHO’s proposed International Health Regulation Amendments + potentially legally-binding ‘Zero Draft Treaty’ currently being drawn up in secret meetings behind closed doors. As the WHO touts the solution to worldly problems as possible through their ‘One Health’ approach — one wonders if a world in which humans, animals, agriculture, and weather are dominated by state depicted notions of the highest attainable standard of ‘health’ may secretly be a trojan horse to dominate as much of the sovereign world as possible — usurping power from individual countries and thrusting it into the hands of a mad-with-power agency which seeks to control Earth’s resources, ecosystems, food, animals, and plants.
VIDEO COURTESY Bitchute CHD.TV / RUMBLE
SHOW NOTES:
PREVIOUS TALK: The Weaponization of the WHO on CHD TV
WHO Member States Agree To Develop Zero Draft Of Legally Binding Pandemic Accord In Early 2023
Review Committee Regarding Amendments To The International Health Regulations (2005)
CDC’s One Health Office: What We Do
One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched And Presented By WHO And The Quadripartite Partners
One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched And Presented By WHO And The Quadripartite Partners
Please Stop The Ride To A Biotech Food Takeover – Transcript
James Roguski Substack — THE TOP 100 REASONS TO #StopTheTreaty, #StopTheAmendments, And #ExitTheWHO.
The Lancet has become a laughing stock

By Norman Fenton and Martin Neil | Where are the numbers? | January 14, 2023
In summary:
- On 6 May 2021 The Lancet published a blatantly flawed study of the effectiveness of the Pfizer covid vaccine on the population of Israel, claiming it was 95% effective.
- On 17 May 2021 we submitted a rapid response 250 word letter explaining why the study was flawed.
- After an initial response saying they would ask the authors for a response to our letter we heard nothing until 20 months later.
- On 8 January 2023 we got an email out of the blue from The Lancet Senior Editor Josefine Gibson apologising for never having got back to us about the letter, saying that they had asked the lead author Dr Sharon Alroy-Preis (SA-P) to respond to our letter but, because she did not provide any formal response, they have decided not to publish our letter.
- We tweeted The Lancet’s response and within 24 hours it got over one million impressions. We also published a substack article highlighting the fact we were now aware of additional problems with the paper relating to SA-P’s relationship with Pfizer.
- On 10 January 2023 we got an unsolicited email from Josefine Gibson (which we can only assume was a result of the reputation hit they got from our tweet) saying “Thank you for bringing your letter from May 2021 back to our attention. We are looking into next steps and will get back to you as soon as we can.”
- On 11 January 2023 (at 10:58) we sent an email to The Lancet’s Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton directing him to our substack article (which highlighted these new problems relating to SA-P’s relationship with Pfizer) stating that The Lancet was clearly taking a credibility hit surrounding the publication of the Israel-Pfizer study and its response to criticisms of it.
- On 11 January 2023 (at 11:21) we got an email from Josefine Gibson apologising for the ‘sub standard experience’ we had with The Lancet. She said that, after discussing it with Horton, they were now inviting us to publish the original letter or an update to it, suggesting the update ‘reflect more current experience with the vaccine’.
- On 12 January 2023 we submitted our updated letter (of an agreed 350 words).
- On 13 January 2023 we got a response from Josefine Gibson saying they had decided against publishing the letter.
Here is the full narrative and January 2023 correspondence in date order (personal details redacted)… continue
Who designed global guidelines for puberty blockers?
Free West Media | January 13, 2023
Clinics around the world follow guidelines from the Netherlands for gender treatments in children. The basis for this is, among other things, a much-criticized study sponsored by a German hormone manufacturer.
More and more children and young people believe they have to question their gender identity. Some 60 minors were treated in the Netherlands in 2010, but the number has increased to around 1,600 last year. Another 1,800 people under the age of 18 were on the waiting list because gender clinics in the country are full.
Institutions around the world use a standard procedure developed in Amsterdam in the 1990s when it comes to the drug treatment of supposedly transsexual children.
A report by the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad has meanwhile cast doubt on the directive and the independence of gender research at the Amsterdam UMC hospital. As strict as the conditions for treatment may appear, several complications have been overlooked: The terrible side effects of the heavy drug has been brushed off by doctors as being the lesser evil.
Hormone manufacturer sponsored ‘puberty blocker’ study
The approach with puberty inhibitors has since been known internationally as the “Dutch protocol”. The protocol has become the basis for the “gender-affirming standard of care” used throughout the world. Tens of thousands of children are affected worldwide, and in the Netherlands certainly several hundreds, although no precise figures are available.
Scientists investigated whether hormone treatment in transsexuals is more successful if their puberty was initially suppressed with medication. The sponsor of the study was the German hormone manufacturer.
Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the company that markets the drug Triptorelin as a puberty inhibitor had a strong commercial interest in the outcome. Primarily, treatment relies on administering hormones from the opposite sex: men are given oestrogen to become more feminine, women testosterone to become more masculine. But teenagers are additionally administered puberty inhibitors, which prevent boys from developing a low voice and beard growth and girls from developing breasts and other feminine shapes.
There are many criticisms of the study. Questionnaires were inconsistent, there was no control group at all, and the researchers used random samples from the 196 treated children for the results.
Several countries are moving away from ‘puberty blockers’
In the meantime, there is objection in more and more countries to the treatment of children with “puberty blockers”. Not only are they said to impair the physical sexual development of minors, but they can also cause osteoporosis, anorgasmia and infertility. According to the NRC, the drug is said to sometimes even impair the ability to make rational decisions.
Worldwide, there is increasing criticism of the scientific content and non-existent empirical basis of the Dutch protocol developed at the gender clinic of the Free University of Amsterdam. In several countries, health authorities have already decided to treat children mainly psychologically and prescribe puberty inhibitors only exceptionally. In Sweden, they concluded that “the risks currently outweigh the possible benefits” and spoke of possibly the country’s “worst medical scandal”.
In the UK, criticism of the Dutch protocol was so serious that the Tavistock gender clinic, the largest in the world, was closed by the authorities.
Sweden, Finland and Great Britain only want to prescribe the drug in rare, particularly severe cases. Instead, they are increasingly relying on psychological support for patients.
Since February last year, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare has followed the Karolinska Institute’s policy regarding hormonal interventions for gender-dysphoric minors. Karolinska’s pediatric gender services at Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital (ALB) has ended the practice of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to gender-dysphoric patients under the age of 18.
Marketing redundant drugs for the wrong condition
In the US, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been investigating two pharmaceutical companies for advertising puberty blockers to children. This is a condition they are not approved to treat.
In December, Paxton announced investigations under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act into Endo Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie Inc., the two companies that sell puberty blockers. The drugs were approved to treat precocious puberty and forms of prostate cancer but were being marketed and prescribed off-label to treat gender dysphoria.
“These drugs were approved for very different purposes and can have detrimental and even irreversible side effects,” Paxton said. “I will not allow pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of Texas children.”

If you are reading this, you are probably aware of the fierce debate surrounding vaccination and looking for information that will allow you to make the best decisions for yourself and your loved ones. Whether you are a parent or a parent to be, sorting through the many arguments on vaccines can be daunting. Still, you need an answer, a definitive one, to the crucial question: Who has it right in the great vaccine debate – the critics, who claim that vaccines often cause serious harm, or the medical establishment, which tells us that vaccines are safe and effective and the science is settled?