IN THE previous instalments I explored the extraordinary hold Bill Gates has over global health policy and the spread of its influence right into the heart of British public health policy via the funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (GF) of science businesses, foundations and public bodies through a complex web of interconnection and crossover of personnel.
This, however, is not the sum total of the GF’s reach into the world of British science and public health. It has been funding British university science departments, projects, and individuals for more than two decades. The topics involved include research into and manufacturing of vaccines.
No government-appointed science committee has influenced public health policy as much as Sage. Many of its members, who cross over with Independent Sage and Nervtag and are already somewhat compromised by connections to the GF-funded GlaxoSmithKline and Wellcome Foundation, are also employees of universities and colleges which have received massive GF grants and, in some cases, work in partnership with them. Three of Sage’s members, Professors Graham Medley, Andrew Rambaut and Matt Keeling, are individual recipients of grants from the GF.
Readers may remember the three modelling papers produced by Imperial College London (ICL), Warwick University and the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine (LSHTM) which received considerable press attention at the end of March, and their dramatic simultaneous warnings of a ‘third’ Covid-19 wave and new lethal variants; cautioning (yet again) how this will put the NHS under stress. All recommended stricter lockdowns, Test and Trace and, tellingly, booster vaccines.
SPI-M-O had assigned each university a specific task: ICL’s was ‘Evaluating England’s Roadmap out of Lockdown’, Warwick’s to produce ‘Road Map Scenarios and Sensitivity’ and LSHTM’s to make an ‘Interim roadmap assessment: prior to Step 2’.
Promoting the ICL paper was none other than the multi-tasking Sage member Professor Neil Ferguson, co-founder and Principal Investigator of the Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (MRC GIDA) at Imperial College, a centre that works closely with the GF, the Global Fund and Gavi, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health at ICL, a Director and Adviser at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and a recipient of cloud computing time from Microsoft and Amazon for Covid-19 modelling.
Warwick’s paper emphasised the ‘danger’ of new variants to an even greater degree than the ICL paper. It warned that ‘stringent methods’ would be needed to counteract them and that the current vaccination programme might not adequately contain them.
The paper produced by the LSHTM group was the most pessimistic of all. It warned that a ‘third wave’ and new variants would bring a high death toll. It also stressed the need for Test and Trace which, together with that other Sage recommendation, vaccine passports, is the new formula for digital slavery and a surveillance state.
How Ferguson, whose modelling methodologies and predictions had been so comprehensively discredited, was getting away with this repeat performance seemed baffling, but for the fact that as a key member of the SPI-M-O subgroup he had been able to commission the new modelling research as well as that of supportive colleagues at Warwick University and the LSHTM.
Curiously, several SPI-M-O members turn out to be affiliated to one or another of these three universities too and are the very same academics who wrote these modelling papers. Given that they have commissioned themselves and sit on the subgroup, no independent assessment or scrutiny of their work has taken place. This is the epitome of jobs for the boys and girls.
Here are the SPI-M-O members connected to ICL:
Professors Neil Ferguson (Sage), Stephen Brett, Nicholas Grassly, Steven Riley, Wendy Barclay (Sage) and Drs Marc Baguelin, Samir Bhatt and Tim Lucas. Ferguson and Baguelin contributed to the ICL paper.
Here are the SPI-M-O members who work at Warwick University:
Professor Matt Keeling and Drs Louise Dyson, Edward Hill, Michael Tildesley and Joe Hilton. Keeling, Dyson, Tildesley and Hill are four out of five authors of the Warwick paper.
The following SPI-M-O members are connected to the LSHTM:
Professors John Edmunds (Sage), Mark Jit, Graham Medley (Sage), Drs Nick Davies, Rosalind Eggo, Sebastian Funk, Thibaut Jombart, Petra Klepac, Adam Kurcharski, Rohini Mathur, Sam Clifford, Elizabeth Fearon, Gwen Knight and Bill Quilty. Edmunds, Jit and Davies are three out of four of the authors of the LSHTM paper.
The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, is a member of both Sage and SPI-M-O.
It will surprise few readers to learn that ICL, Warwick University and the LSHTM, are historically heavily funded by the GF.
The GF made its first grant to ICL of $31.9million in 2000. ICL received a further $46.7million from the GF in 2006 to research tropical diseases. The GF granted ICL a total of $446,205 in 2019 for research into enteric and diarrhoeal diseases, technology solutions, malaria, and ‘Discovery and Translational Sciences’. In 2020 it gave ICL a total of $91.5million for studies into polio, tuberculosis, global health, technology solutions, malaria, HIV, Discovery and Translational Sciences and family planning.
Last January, Sage member Professor Sir Mark Walport was appointed chair of the Imperial College Academic Health Science Centre (AHSC) Strategic Partnership. His ICL colleagues Professor Robin Grimes and Dr David Halpern sit on Sage too. Professor Ferguson and two ICL colleagues, Professors Wendy Barclay and Peter Openshaw, are members of Nervtag as well.
Warwick University’s GF funding goes back to 2015. An initial grant of $20,000 from the GF rapidly increased to a current total of $8.3million. In 2017, the GF awarded Warwick University $3million to research disease modelling, and in 2020 $2.2million to study neglected tropical diseases.
Sage member Professor Yvonne Doyle works at the LSHTM as does Nervtag member Professor John Edmunds and Independent Sage member Professor Martin McKee. Professor Edmunds was recently a recipient of a grant worth £5million from UKRI, which collaborates with the GF, to study disease modelling in Africa.
The late Professor Val Curtis, a member of Independent Sage, also worked at the LSHTM.
Predictably, none of the recent modelling by this closed shop takes into account the economic damage, social disintegration or consequences of lockdown, or the neglect of non-Covid-19 diseases as a result of lockdown and social distancing policies. Yet all this is now extensively catalogued. The conflicts of interest and cross over with these government advisers and highly directed research in universities heavily funded by GF, which has one narrow vision global vaccination agenda, is alarming.
Even more alarming is that it is on this basis that an unaccountable and unelected body has effectively dictated Government policy and our lives this past year. Its controversially modelled predictions of worst-case scenarios, none of which to date have been borne out, have been useful for two things: terrifying the populace into submission and priming the government, and us, into further lockdowns next autumn and winter – and establish them as the ‘new normal’.
Whether the men and women named here are useful idiots for Gates, or self-servers without moral compass, such scientific narrow vision reflects very poorly on them and their institutions.
The tentacles of the GF are everywhere. In the final part of this series I will be looking at its funding of the Oxford Recovery trials, Cambridge Science Park, its interconnections with the AstraZeneca project, its funding of several other universities, and finally at its investment in Serco, one of the outsourcing companies behind the Test and Trace programme.
After rollout under emergency authorisation, manufacturers of covid-19 vaccines now have their sights on regulatory approval. But what’s the rush, asks Peter Doshi, and is just six months of data from now unblinded trials acceptable?
In April 2021, Pfizer and Moderna announced efficacy results at the six month mark from the phase III trials of their respective covid-19 vaccines.1 2
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the company’s data “confirm the favourable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine and position us to submit a Biologics License Application to the US FDA [Food and Drug Administration].”1 And on 7 May it formally initiated that application which, if successful, will earn the Pfizer-BioNTech product, BNT162b2, the distinction of becoming the first covid-19 vaccine approved by the FDA.
Because lest we forget, all covid-19 vaccines currently in use in the US are available under emergency access only.
(The situation is similar in Europe, where four covid-19 vaccines have been granted “conditional marketing authorisations,” a fast track mechanism that can be used in emergencies. These can be converted into standard “marketing authorisations” pending positive data after authorisation, but this has not yet happened for any covid-19 vaccine being administered.)
As hundreds of millions of people around the world get vaccinated, it may seem like wordsmithing to highlight the fact that none of the covid-19 vaccines in use are actually “approved.” Through an emergency access mechanism known as Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), the products being rolled out still technically remain “investigational.”3 Factsheets distributed to vaccinees are clear: “There is no FDA approved vaccine to prevent covid-19.”4
The approval-authorisation distinction is often misunderstood by the media,5 even in the scientific press. But it was the focus of much discussion back in September 2020. With large phase III trials by Pfizer and Moderna well under way, and the November US presidential election looming, many worried about political pressure resulting in the rollout of an unsafe or ineffective vaccine.6
The FDA had already come under fire, accused of bending to the White House in granting EUAs for two covid-19 treatments, hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma. But those fears largely dissipated when the FDA published a guidance document in early October outlining its expectations for the EUA. According to the document, at least half of a trial’s participants would need to be followed for at least two months.7 This alone made it all but certain no vaccine could cross the line before the election.
The FDA also said it would want a vaccine at least 50% effective (with a confidence interval reaching no lower than 30%) against a primary endpoint of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or covid-19 disease of any severity8—parameters it had previously defined as necessary for approval. Even for non-clinical parameters, like manufacturing quality, the FDA characterised its expectations for the EUA as “very similar” to those for approval.3
Six months: enough?
One key difference between EUA and approval (also called “licensure,” and which for vaccines is known as a BLA (Biologics License Application)) was the expected length of follow-up of trial participants. Unlike its clear articulation of two months for an EUA, the FDA has not committed to a clear minimum for approval.
Cody Meissner, a professor of paediatrics at Tufts University and member of the FDA’s advisory committee, was curious. “Is it possible to predict or estimate when conditions of safety and efficacy might be satisfied for BLA?” Meissner asked at the agency’s 10 December meeting which had been convened to consider the FDA’s first emergency authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine.
The FDA’s Doran Fink responded: “I couldn’t predict, but I will say that we typically ask for at least six months of follow-up in a substantial number of clinical trial participants to constitute a safety database that would support licensure.”
An approval based on six months of data would represent one of the fastest for a novel vaccine in FDA history. Among the six “first in disease” vaccines approved by the FDA since 2006, pre-licensure pivotal trials were a median of 23 months in duration, according to a recent analysis.9
Six months also seems substantially shorter than previously conceptualised expectations. A World Health Organization expert group on covid-19 vaccines (which included FDA regulators) in August 2020 called for follow-up “until at least month 12, or until an effective vaccine is deployed locally.”10 Another group, composed of industry and academic authors, similarly wrote in October 2020: “we recommend longer term follow-up of all participants … for at least a year after randomisation.”11
On paper, the phase III studies by Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen are all of two years’ duration. But the FDA’s official position on minimum follow-up before licensure is unclear at best.
In its formal guidance last June, the agency said that for licensure applications, it wanted participants followed for covid-19 outcomes for “as long as feasible, ideally at least one to two years”12 after the first injection. But the same document states that safety assessments for “serious and other medically attended adverse events” should be studied “for at least six months after completion of all study vaccinations. Longer safety monitoring may be warranted for certain vaccine platforms.”
Asked to clarify whether its guidance is asking for follow-up of at least six months or one year, a spokesperson told The BMJ: “We do not have any further information beyond what is in the guidance document.”
Unblinded and without a control group—what about safety?
Duration of protection is not the only question that longer, placebo controlled trials can address. They also address vaccine safety.
“Very often, it’s the fact that we have that placebo controlled follow-up over time, that gives us the ability to say that the vaccine didn’t cause something at a longer period of time after vaccination,” the FDA’s Philip Krause explained last December.13
Yet there is a gap—currently of unknown size but growing—between any expectation of blinded placebo controlled data, and the reality that within weeks of the vaccines receiving an EUA the unblinding of trials commenced as placebo recipients were offered the chance to get vaccinated.
Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University, told the FDA in an invited presentation last December, “Once a vaccine is made widely available and encouraged, maintaining a double blinded control group for more than a nominal period is no longer in the investigator’s (or regulator’s) control and undue pressure to do so may undermine the entire vaccine testing enterprise.”14
Goodman’s recommendation was to rapidly convert the trials into crossover studies, enabling those on placebo to get vaccinated (and vice versa), while maintaining the blind. The companies challenged the feasibility, calling it “onerous,” and a crossover never occurred.15
The BMJ asked Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) what proportion of trial participants were now formally unblinded, and how many originally allocated to placebo have now received a vaccine. Pfizer declined to say, but Moderna announced that “as of April 13, all placebo participants have been offered the Moderna covid-19 vaccine and 98% of those have received the vaccine.”2 In other words, the trial is unblinded, and the placebo group no longer exists.
Janssen told The BMJ: “We do not have specific figures on how many of our study participants have received a vaccine at this time.” But the company confirmed it was implementing an amended protocol across all countries to unblind all participants in its two phase III trials, the earlier of which passed the median of two month follow-up mark in January.
How the FDA will weigh the loss of blinding and placebo controlled follow-up is unclear, but just months ago the agency said these trial properties were vital.
“Continuation of placebo controlled follow-up after EUA will be important and may actually be critical to ensure that additional safety and effectiveness data are accrued to support submission of a licensure application as soon as possible following an EUA. … Once a decision is made to unblind an ongoing placebo controlled trial, that decision cannot be walked back. And that controlled follow-up is lost forever,” the FDA said last October.3
At its next advisory committee in December 2020, the FDA reiterated the importance of the placebo group: “Placebo controlled follow-up can be very important in showing that whatever happened in the vaccine group also happened in the placebo group. Because that’s our best way of knowing.”13
What’s the rush?
The US’s “Operation Warp Speed” delivered on its promise to get a novel vaccine into arms in record time (box). Millions of doses of vaccines are being administered daily across the US, making clear that lack of FDA approval is no barrier to access. So just what benefit is there in seeking, and granting, a BLA?
The BMJ asked the manufacturers why they were seeking a BLA. Moderna did not respond and Janssen only confirmed it intended to apply for a BLA “later in 2021.” Pfizer likewise did not answer but instead quoted an FDA webpage on medical devices, which stated: “Sponsors of EUA products are encouraged to follow up the EUA with a pre-market submission so that it can remain on the market once the EUA is no longer in effect.”16 But EUAs have no built-in expiry date—in fact, 14 EUAs for Zika diagnostic tests remain active despite the public health emergency expiring in 2017.17
Cody Meissner told The BMJ he saw some distinct advantages of a BLA over EUA. An approved vaccine, for one, would provide “an element of assurance,” increasing public trust in the vaccines, particularly for those currently sitting on the fence. It would also pave the way for claims of vaccine injury to be routed through a more established compensation programme, and for adding the vaccine to government funded schemes to reach children in financial need.18 Finally, it may affect the potential for vaccine mandates: “It is unlikely these vaccines will be mandated while an EUA is in place. Remember that currently these vaccines are still considered experimental.”
While still under EUA, an increasing number of educational and other institutions have already mandated vaccines, but debates over the legality of these actions has hinged on the distinction between authorisation and approval.19
But approving a vaccine in order to legally support mandates or convince people of its safety arguably puts the cart before the horse. Meissner responded that a BLA would not be issued until the FDA is convinced of the short and long term safety of these vaccines.
No new biodistribution studies for covid-19 vaccines
Officials have consistently emphasised that despite shaving years off traditional timelines for producing vaccines, no compromises in the process were taken.20 However one type of study, tracking the distribution of a vaccine once injected in the body, was not conducted using any of the three vaccines currently authorised in the US.
Such biodistribution studies are a standard element of drug safety testing but “are usually not required for vaccines,” according to European Medicines Agency policy,21 which adds, “However, such studies might be applicable when new delivery systems are employed or when the vaccine contains novel adjuvants or excipients.”
In the case of covid-19 vaccines, regulators accepted biodistribution data from past studies performed with related, mostly unapproved compounds that use the same platform technology.22232425
Janssen told The BMJ its covid-19 vaccine leverages the same technology as its Ebola vaccine, which received licensure last June. “Our confidence in our adenovirus vector Ad26 is based on our experience with this vector.”
Pfizer and Moderna did not respond to The BMJ’s questions regarding why no biodistribution studies were conducted on their novel mRNA products, and none of the companies, nor the FDA, would say whether new biodistribution studies will be required prior to licensure.
Footnotes
Competing interests PD gave a public statement at the October and December FDA advisory committee meetings mentioned in this article (transcripts here: https://faculty.rx.umaryland.edu/pdoshi/#publications), and may continue to engage in public input towards regulatory decision making around covid-19 vaccines. PD is also employed by a university that has mandated covid-19 vaccines for all faculty, staff, and students. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of the University of Maryland.
US Food and Drug Administration. 161st Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/143982/download
US Food and Drug Administration. Development, authorization and licensure of vaccines to prevent COVID-19. October 6, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/142723/download
. An overview of vaccine development, approval, and regulation, with implications for covid-19. Health Aff (Millwood)2021;40:25–32.doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01620pmid:33211535
US Food and Drug Administration. 162nd Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144859/download
Goodman S. Considerations for placebo-controlled trial design if an unlicensed vaccine becomes available. Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144354/download
. Emergency use authorizations (EUAs) versus FDA approval: implications for covid-19 and public health. Am J Public Health2021;111:1065–9.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2021.306273pmid:33950730
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, WEF
Say it’s 2014 and you’ve had this idea for a technocratic Great Reset of the world economy for some time now, but it only works if the entire planet is rocked by a pandemic. How do you go about selling your idea?
If you are World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder Klaus Schwab, you attempt to sell your vision of a global Utopia via a Great Reset of the world order in three simple steps:
Announce your intention to revamp every aspect of society with global governance, and keep repeating that message
When your message isn’t getting through, simulate fake pandemic scenarios that show why the world needs a great reset
If the fake pandemic scenarios aren’t persuasive enough, wait a couple months for a real global crisis to occur, and repeat step one
It took Schwab and the Davos elite about six years to watch their great reset ideology grow from a tiny Swiss seed in 2014 to a European super-flower pollinating the entire globe in 2020.
The so-called “Great Reset” promises to build “a more secure, more equal, and more stable world” if everyone on the planet agrees to “act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
But it wouldn’t have been possible to contemplate materializing such an all-encompassing plan for a new world order without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocked society to its core.
“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval” — Clade X pandemic simulation (May, 2018)
So, in May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic — dubbed “Clade X” — to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with such a crisis.
A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to stage another pandemic exercise called Event 201 in October, 2019.
Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic.
And a few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Since then, just about every scenario covered in the Clade X and Event 201 simulations has come into play, including:
Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
The collapse of many industries
Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
A global lack of personal protective equipment
The breakdown of international supply chains
Mass unemployment
Rioting in the streets
And a whole lot more!
After the nightmare scenarios had fully materialized by mid-2020, the WEF founder declared “now is the time for a “Great Reset”.
Was it excellent forecasting, planning, and modeling on the part of the WEF and partners that Clade X and Event 201 turned out to be so prophetic, or was there something more to it?
Timeline
Below is a condensed timeline of events that tracks the Great Reset agenda that went from just a “hope” in 2014 to a globalist ideology touted by royalty, the media, and heads of state the world-over in 2020.
2014-2017: Klaus Schwab calls for Great Reset and WEF repeats message
Ahead of the 2014 WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Schwab announced that he hoped the WEF would push the reset button on the global economy.
The WEF would go on to repeat that message for years.
Between 2014 and 2017, the WEF called to reshape, restart, reboot, and reset the global order every single year, each aimed at solving various “crises.”
2014: WEF publishes meeting agenda entitled “The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business.”
2016: WEF holds panel called “How to reboot the global economy.”
2017: WEF publishes article saying “Our world needs a reset in how we operate.”
Then in 2018, the Davos elites turned their heads towards simulating fake pandemic scenarios to see how prepared the world would be in the face of a different crisis.
2018-2019: WEF, Johns Hopkins & Gates Foundation simulate fake pandemics
On May 15, 2018, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the “Clade X” pandemic exercise in partnership with the WEF.
The Clade X exercise included mock video footage of actors giving scripted news reports about a fake pandemic scenario (video below).
The Clade X event also included discussion panels with real policymakers who assessed that governments and industry were not adequately prepared for the fictitious global pandemic.
“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval,” according to a WEF report on Clade X.
“There are major unmet global vulnerabilities and international system challenges posed by pandemics that will require new robust forms of public-private cooperation to address” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Then on October 18, 2019, in partnership with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF ran Event 201.
During the scenario, the entire global economy was shaken, there were riots on the streets, and high-tech surveillance measures were needed to “stop the spread.”
Two fake pandemics were simulated in the two years leading up to the real coronavirus crisis.
“Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security issued a public statement on January 24, 2020, explicitly addressing that Event 201 wasn’t meant to predict the future.
“To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic.”
Intentional or not, Event 201 “highlighted” the “fictional” challenges of a pandemic, along with recommendations that go hand-in-hand with the great reset agenda that has set up camp in the nefarious “new normal.”
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Together, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation submitted seven recommendations for governments, international organizations, and global business to follow in the event of a pandemic.
The Event 201 recommendations call for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors while emphasizing the importance of establishing partnerships with un-elected, global institutions such as the WHO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Air Transport Organization, to carry out a centralized response.
One of the recommendations calls for governments to partner with social media companies and news organization to censor content and control the flow of information.
“Media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
According to the report, “Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.
“National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages.
“For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology.”
Sound familiar?
Throughout 2020, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been censoring, suppressing, and flagging any coronavirus-related information that goes against WHO recommendations as a matter of policy, just as Event 201 had recommended.
2020: WEF declares ‘Now is the time for a Great Reset’
After calling for a great reset in 2014, the Davos crowd repeated the same ideology for a few more years before pivoting towards simulating faux pandemic scenarios.
A few months after the WEF established that nobody was prepared to deal with a coronavirus pandemic, the WHO declared there was a coronavirus pandemic.
All of a sudden! the great reset narrative that the WEF had been nurturing for six years, found a place to pitch its tent in the “new normal” camp.
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future,” Schwab declared on June 3, 2020.
And that’s where we’re at today.
The Davos elites said they wanted a global reset of the economy many years ago
They role-played what would happen if a pandemic were to occur
And now they’re saying that the great reset ideology is the solution to the pandemic, and it must be enacted quickly
The great reset is a means to an end.
Next on the agenda is a complete makeover of society under a technocratic regime of un-elected bureaucrats who want to dictate how the world is run from the top down, leveraging invasive technologies to track and trace your every move while censoring and silencing anyone who dares not comply.
Verifying that it is in the Moderna COVID vaccine, I find a 12/30/20 CDC document titled: “COVID-19 Vaccines: Update on Allergic Reactions, Contraindications, and Precautions.” [1]
If you scroll down halfway through the document, you’ll see a chart titled, “Ingredients Included in mRNA COVID vaccines.” (pg 20)
The right-hand side of the chart shows ingredients in the Moderna vaccine. The fifth ingredient down is “SM-102: heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2-hydroxyethyl) (6-oxo-6-(undecyloxy) hexyl) amino) octanoate.”
Now we go to a document published by the Cayman Chemical Company of Ann Arbor, Michigan: “Safety Data Sheet acc. to OSHA HCS.” (04/11/2021) [2]
This data sheet lists the effects of SM-102. Here is the opening note: “For research use only, not for human or veterinary use.”
Far from comforting.
Then the safety data sheet lights up with adverse effects/warnings re SM-102. For example: “Suspected of causing cancer. Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. Causes damage to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the liver and the respiratory system through prolonged or repeated exposure. Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.”
Several things to point out here. First, what dosage level of, and what duration of exposure to, SM-102 are we talking about? Details on these toxicity factors need to be known. HOWEVER, all that is overridden by the fact that SM-102 is being INJECTED into the body via the Moderna shot. We’re not just talking about inhalation or skin contact.
Obviously, the human body has layers of defense against attack. With injection, a number of those layers are bypassed.
And once deep within the body, where does SM-102 travel as it causes damage along the way?
I doubt that the Cayman safety data sheet even considered the possibility that SM-102 would be injected.
The experts and authorities will assure us SM-102 is safe. They’ll say only miniscule amounts are being injected. They’ll say the clinical trials of the vaccine revealed no problems. They’ll parrot, over and over again, as they always do: “safe and effective.”
You’re walking along a country path. You see a snake lying just ahead of you. He slowly raises his head and looks at you. On his hood, you read the words: “emergency use authorization granted.”
MIT did a study on Covid Skeptics and guess what? They found out we’re better at science, data analytics and communication than they are! Unfortunately this means we have to be stopped. I read from the study and give my commentary.
An interesting recent article by international lawyer John Whitbeck suggests that the billions of dollars that the United States gives to Israel annually is not technically “foreign aid” as the Jewish state is as measured by per capita GDP the 19th wealthiest in the world, ahead of countries like Germany. It is, instead “tribute,” which is defined as the “payment made periodically by one state or ruler to another, especially as a sign of dependence.”
That the United States has surrendered key aspects of its national sovereignty to Israeli control has been observed by many. Whitbeck dates the submission to the events surrounding the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in June 1967, in which 34 crewmen died and 172 were injured in an attempt to sink the ship and kill all the crew. To protect Israel, President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara initiated a cover-up that has persisted until this day. The unavenged killing of large numbers of US servicemen has signaled to a series of Israeli governments since that time that they could do anything to Washington without any consequences, including spying on its benefactor, involving Washington in its own wars, and exploiting the US Treasury as its own resource.
The United States has favored Israel above all other nations while a series of Republican and Democratic administrations have accepted that the US is the junior partner in the relationship virtually without demur, culminating in the unprecedented Barack Obama arrangement whereby Israel would receive $38 billion over the course of ten years, automatically and with no conditions placed on the Jewish state’s actions vis-à-vis American regional interests. And now, with the bloodletting continuing unabated in Gaza, Honest Joe Biden has agreed to “sell” the Israelis $735 million worth of new weapons to replenish their arsenal.
Whitbeck’s analysis is convincing, but one might also see a more personal element in how Israel has achieved dominance. Any American politician who seeks to object to the “most favored nation” status of Israel is likely to get unelected the next time he or she has to run for office. The list of the fallen includes Senators Chuck Percy and William Fulbright as well as congressmen Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney and James Traficant. The key to defeating incumbents in electoral office was and is money and the power and access that it buys. Israel and its supporting cast of 600 pro-Zionist Jewish organizations have billions of dollars to play with and they also include in their ranks co-religionists and other bought sympathizers who control the editorial and news content of America’s printed, television and radio media. Those congressmen who make a show of strongly supporting Israel are rewarded with campaign donations, a friendly media and a virtual lock on reelection. Those who do not are “disappeared.”
The last president who successfully made Israel back down was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who compelled Israel, France and Britain to cease their attempt to seize the Suez Canal from Egypt in 1956. George H. W. Bush was the most recent president to try to pressure Israel, when he refused to guarantee loans that Israel intended to use to expand its illegal settlements, a move which Bush correctly perceived as being bad for US relations through the region. The media subsequently piled on Bush when he ran for a second term, discovering that there was something “wrong” with the economy, which was not true. That and other contrived stories led to Bush’s loss to safely Zionist Bill Clinton. Bush’s son George W. learned the lesson from his father’s loss, even failing to investigate the possible Israeli role in 9/11 so as not to irritate his masters in Tel Aviv. W also acquired along the way a throng of neocon Jewish advisers at the Pentagon and National Security Council who were the architects of the disastrous Iraq War and the Global War on Terror (GWOT) which still plagues us to this day.
Israel’s power to control developments in the United States has recently been manifest in its ability to influence government decision making even down to the state and local level. An increasing number of public schools now have mandatory holocaust education, which, in Wisconsin for example, includes both grade school and high school levels and also applies to private schools. Also, thirty-three states now have laws punishing citizens who promote or participate in boycotts of Israeli products, the non-violent so-called Boycott Divestment and Sanction (BDS) option. Many states have special trade agreements with Israel that are designed to benefit the import of products and services from the Jewish state without mandating any reciprocity while the federal government likewise allows Israel to bid on contracts, including those relating to defense, intelligence and national security.
The Israelis take advantage of their easy access to US infrastructure by spying on both the American government and on private organizations that it considers to be unfriendly. Last year a number of electronic intrusion devices were discovered near federal buildings in Washington. They were planted by the Israelis but nothing was ever done about it. One also recalls how Israeli snoopers were recording White House phone calls under Bill Clinton, some of which were conversations with Monica Lewinsky, at the time potential blackmail material.
Another part of the Zionist game plan is the aggressive use of the anti-Semitism label to silence critics as well as the exploitation of the so-called holocaust with its assertion of perpetual victimhood of the Jewish people to create eternal sympathy for Israel. Of course, it helps to have a media willing to support such nonsense rather than expose it for what it is, but that is what having gross overrepresentation of Zionists as media owners and editors is all about.
All of which brings us to the present, in which an Israeli terror campaign against the Palestinians which has included removing families from their homes and marches through the remaining Arab parts of Jerusalem by angry mobs of armed settlers chanting “death to Arabs” while also calling for “burning” and “hanging” the local residents. The Palestinians have finally had enough and are fighting back and the Israeli armed forces have characteristically responded by attacking targets including apartment buildings in Gaza, killing numerous children.
And a bit of context is necessary. Israel has for many years denied the Palestinians basic human rights while also stealing their homes, land and water. Houses and even villages have been demolished and an estimated millions of productive olive trees burned or destroyed. Palestinians are not free to travel in the West Bank, are arrested and held in prison for no reason, including children, and are shot with no consequences for the Israeli army or police shooter.
US media attempts to portray the violence taking place currently as some kind of even-handed struggle, which it is not. Israel has had control of the historic Palestine for more than fifty years. It has the most powerful military in the Middle East and the Palestinians are basically unarmed, hitting Israel with “rockets” that are largely home-made and ineffective as demonstrated by the disparity in the casualty count. Human Rights Watch, which has been timid about how it treats Israel, has finally reported with stacks of evidence how Israel is an apartheid state that commits numerous human rights violations and occasional war crimes, just as it is doing right now. The intention of all this is to make the life of Palestinians so miserable that they all leave. Israel would prefer not to have to do the job by killing all of them, a route nevertheless endorsed by a number of leading Israeli politicians, but would much prefer that they go voluntarily.
The fact is that the United States enables Israeli behavior by cravenly heeding Netanyahu’s warning not to interfere. It has already blocked several resolutions in the United Nations Security Council to stop the fighting because they are too critical of Israel. The fact that Washington, like a broken record, continues to voice support of Israel the perpetual victim even when it is clearly the aggressor is shameful. If you want to know just what kind of country we Americans now live in, Jen Psaki, White House press spokesperson has provided the answer. She has announced that our government’s position on the ongoing violence in the Middle East is that “The president’s support for Israel’s security, for its legitimate right to defend itself and its people, is fundamental and will never waiver. We condemn ongoing rocket attacks by Hamas and other terrorist groups against Jerusalem.”
Excuse me, but even some minimal compassion for dead Arab children seems to be missing in Biden’s statement, though its ruthlessness inevitably is exceeded by Donald Trump’s bleat “When I was in office we were known as the Peace Presidency, because Israel’s adversaries knew that the United States stood strongly with Israel and there would be swift retribution if Israel was attacked. Under Biden, the world is getting more violent and more unstable because Biden’s weakness and lack of support for Israel is leading to new attacks on our allies. America must always stand with Israel and make clear that the Palestinians must end the violence, terror, and rocket attacks, and make clear that the U.S. will always strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself.”
Donald Trump’s “peace presidency?” Does he include his attacks on Syria and his assassination of a senior Iranian official? Another wannabe with GOP presidential aspirations Florida’s Ron DeSantis, self-designated as “Israel’s governor,” puts it another way, “Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks.” Is this a Monty Python sketch? Israel was attacked and is defending itself? Time to wake up America. Israel the victim is preparing a genocide and the fact that no one is Washington is willing to say “no” gives it a green light to go ahead. The blood will be on our hands this time around as Joe Biden and company could have made the decision to stop the developing madness over the past month by putting pressure on Israel to stop the home expulsions and riots by settlers, but clearly that did not and will not happen. And when it all blows up and maybe tens of thousands will die, we will likely hear the same noise coming out of Washington: “Israel has a right to defend itself.”
To conclude with another comment by John Whitbeck relating to his desire to see the United States reclaim its sovereignty would be appropriate. He writes “For many years, I have had a recurring but thus far unrequited dream: Someday, during a Senate confirmation hearing, a nominee will respond to demands to… pledge allegiance to [Israel] with a simple affirmation of pure and genuine patriotism: ‘Senator, with all due respect, I owe my allegiance to the United States of America and to no other country. If you have a problem with that, don’t vote to confirm me.’”
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org
I’ve written about this before, and I’m sure I’ll write about it again.
We’re told that the RNA COVID vaccines force the cells of the body to produce a foreign “spike” protein.
There is a little thing you may have heard of called EVIDENCE.
In other words, show me a well-done study, using a few thousand people who have been vaccinated, which proves that all these people’s cells ARE producing that foreign protein and ONLY that foreign protein.
There isn’t such a study.
But if there were—
“Look, a few hundred people didn’t produce the spike protein at all. Wonder what they DID produce.”
“I see a hundred people out of two thousand who produced a huge excess of the spike protein. Wonder what effect THAT is having.”
“I see two hundred people who produced the spike protein plus a bunch of other foreign proteins. A few of those foreign compounds I’ve never seen before. That’s not good at all.”
In fact, show me a large-scale study in which an injection is designed to force the human body to produce ANY specific protein. Let’s see the results.
Can’t find that study, either?
Believing what genetic researchers tell you is like believing what a grifter tells you about how to win at roulette.
For example, are you aware that, after decades of genetic research and tens of thousands of studies linking genes to diseases, there isn’t a single gene-treatment that can cure a disease across the board?
What there is, is a great deal of money that hustlers have raised for bio-tech firms. And there are many sky-blue promises.
And oh yes, there are many examples of errors, in which experimental gene insertions yield unexpected results. Unintended and dangerous results. Unpredicted alterations in genomes.
So the huge numbers of reported injuries and deaths from the COVID RNA vaccines are surely the result of more than just the production of the spike protein.
Why is nobody talking about this?
Because people assume the problem must be the spike protein and only that protein.
The people of planet Earth are part of a guinea-pig vaccine experiment that is much wider than that. We are being subjected to an open-ended genetic spin of the roulette wheel.
And there are no safeguards and no comprehensive follow-ups.
For this reason alone, the entire effort to develop the RNA injections should have been banned from the beginning—until researchers demonstrated convincingly that the risks would be minimal. Of course, they couldn’t make that guarantee.
But the fatuously named Warp Speed program rocketed ahead. Based on pretentious and speculative “science.”
People tend to think—because they watch sci-fi movies—that scientific evil doers are firing a perfectly destructive single arrow at the heart of humanity. But evil-doers are quite capable of launching a thunderstorm of multiple pyrotechnics beyond their control.
As I pointed out in prior articles on this subject, the analogous area of GMO plant genetics is replete with uncontrolled effects—including gene drift, in which injected Monsanto genes move from plants into soil bacteria and human gut bacteria.
Genetic ripple-effects throughout an organism can force the unnatural production of a number of different proteins while modifying others.
This is NOT good; and some of the ways in which it is not good are unknown.
Based on the current level of knowledge in the field of gene-research, the entire program of manufacturing and injecting RNA into the body is an insane criminal enterprise.
As time passes, I expect investigators to discover new ways in which these RNA shots are harming people. And some of those investigators will say, “THIS turns out to be what the vaccine is doing. THIS one thing.” And they’ll be wrong.
It’s five, ten, 20 different things. Caused by ripple effects throughout the genome.
In this episode, Dr. Pierre Kory, Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC Alliance, discusses the ways that public health organizations are manipulating scientific data on early COVID-19 therapeutics in order to sow uncertainty; and why they are doing it.
Donate to the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance to educate medical professionals and the public in safe and effective ways to prevent and treat COVID-19.
Your donations will help support the FLCCC Alliance with the rising costs of public relations, research, medical education, translation, and advocacy.
Operating by their own rules extrajudicially, the US, NATO and Israel consistently breach the laws of war, notably what’s been codified post-WW II in the UN Charter, Nuremberg Code, Fourth Geneva, and other key international laws.
In November 2012 — near the end of Israel’s preemptive Pillar of Cloud war on Gaza — Law Professor Francis Boyle explained the laws of war in testimony before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Commission.
Indicting Israel for crimes of war, against humanity and genocide against defenseless Gazans, Boyle said his participation was “to explain the law to which you will apply the facts in formulating your indictments,” adding:
It’s “for you to decide whether or not to indict, or whom to indict.”
“But you have already received my recommendation that you should indict the state of Israel, and named officials that I have already provided to you that will be found again in the transcript of the proceedings, including and especially General Yaron for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.”
Witnesses provided damning evidence, what’s true about all Israeli wars — dating from aggression it waged in 1947-48.
Months of preemptive war, mass slaughter, vast destruction, expulsion of around 800,000 Palestinians from their homeland, and atrocities committed in forcing them out stole 78% of historic Palestine.
The rest was forcefully taken in June 1967.
Since December 2008, Israel waged preemptive war on Gaza four times, the latest aggression launched on May 10 — after weeks of fighting in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Gaza “is under military occupation,” Boyle stressed. The same, of course, applies to the West Bank and East Jerusalem — Palestinians confined to separated cantons for easier controlled.
Their rights throughout the Territories are systematically denied by Israel.
Under Fourth Geneva, Palestinians are protected persons as civilians, Boyle explained.
Their inviolable rights have been denied by Israel since it gained control of the Territories in 1967.
Israel flagrantly violated “almost each and every one” of Fourth Geneva’s 147 articles “with respect to the civilian population of Gaza” and rest of the Territories.
Yet it remains unaccountable for the highest of high crimes for the past 73 years — because of US/Western support and indifference toward Palestinians by most world community member states.
Israel falsely claims that it’s no longer bound by Fourth Geneva and other laws of war — because it formally withdrew forces from the Strip.
Boyle: “That does not change the situation legally. They are dead wrong.”
“Professor Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur for Palestine, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council itself had said, ‘No, this is nonsense.’ ”
“ ‘Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza.’ ”
Falk’s “predecessor, Professor John Dugard of South Africa, has also taken for the same position.”
“The International Committee of Red Cross has taken the same position.”
Occupation is based on control.
Israel maintains it illegally throughout the Territories.
“Gaza is a (besieged) concentration camp,” Boyle stressed.
Israel maintains control of its borders, air space, and offshore waters.
Its troops invade the Strip at the discretion of Israeli authorities.
IDF warplanes terror-bomb Gaza at their their discretion.
Israeli gunboats and artillery in its own territory shell Strip towns and villages time and again — daily since May 10.
Gaza’s border with Egypt is sealed. Its ruling authorities operate in cahoots with Israel and the US against long-suffering Gazans.
There’s no ambiguity about Israeli control over Gaza, Boyle stressed — according to international law.
The Jewish state “remains the belligerent occupant of Gaza subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 that protects all the civilians in Gaza, and the Hague Regulation of 1907 that also protects the land and the environment of Gaza as well as to some extent, the civilians.”
“So, this is the legal regime applicable to Gaza.”
Since at least 2007, Israel committed slow-motion genocide against Gazans.
In January 2006, Hamas was democratically elected historic Palestine’s legitimate government — the last time a free, fair, and open election was held in the Territories.
Current Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas was virtually installed by Israel in January 2005.
His term expired in 2009. Yet he remains in office at Israel’s discretion, refusing to call new elections.
After scheduling one for May 22 — he postponed it on the phony pretext of how it would proceed in East Jerusalem.
When eventually held, Israel will control the outcome, a democratic one ruled out as long as Israel controls the Territories with an iron fist.
Before Yasser Arafat was assassinated by Israel in 2004 by radioactive polonium poisoning after falling out of favor with its ruling authorities, Boyle urged him to “sue Israel for committing genocide against Palestine and the Palestinians at the International Court of Justice.”
He gave Abbas the same advice.
To this day, Israel remains unaccountable for the highest of high crimes of war, against humanity and slow-motion genocide throughout the Territories.
Because its ruling regimes are backed the US, Boyle explained.
Throughout its history, Israel committed virtually every high crime imaginable against defenseless Palestinians — including theft of their land, resources, fundamental rights and lives.
Yet justice is always denied them.
Boyle’s extensive testimony before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Commission covered much ground about Israeli high crimes.
Almost nine years later, things in the Territories are arguably worse than earlier.
Yet long denied justice for Palestinians is nowhere in sight.
Their liberating struggle continues — largely on their own because the US, West, and most other countries one-sidedly support Israel.
A Final Comment
At the time of his above testimony, Boyle said he’s “gone all over the world seeking justice for the Palestinians for the last 30 years.”
“And I am now coming here today and asking you to indict this criminal rogue state Israel, its aiders and abettors, and its highest level officials… Peres, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Barak, its chiefs of staff and their predecessors, the rapist Katsav, Olmert, Livni, Ashkenaz, and before that, General Amos Yaron.”
China for the first time officially announced suspicions of US involvement in the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19 in the republic. Beijing referred to information about the appearance of the first infected in the United States long before the official date and, possibly, earlier detection of infection in Hubei.
The reports of the “American trail” in a pandemic seem insane, but this version begins to show solid evidence.
“Recently, a Kazakhstani resource Yvision reported that “a source among the staff of the Central Reference Laboratory (CRL) in Almaty confirmed that the deadly coronavirus was developed in this institution.”
This laboratory was created with the financial support of the US Army and is still controlled by representatives of Washington.
Preparation for biological warfare in the CIS
After the end of the Cold War, the US Department of Defense in the post-Soviet countries created several biological reference laboratories, of a high (third) degree of protection, designed to work with especially dangerous viruses and bacteria. These facilities operate in Kharkov, Tbilisi and Almaty.
“Their official goal is the fight against the spread of dangerous infections, the real one is to prepare for a possible biological war in the territory of the former USSR.”
Scientific research at the facilities is funded and supervised by the US Department of Defense, and is often carried out with the participation of researchers from the Institute of Military Medicine. Walter Reed US Armed Forces (Maryland) coming to the region.
For example, a detachment of military biologists worked under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Jamie Blow, who studied African swine fever, for a long time in the TsRL in Tbilisi. Shortly after the start of the work of this team, in 2013, an outbreak of this disease was recorded in the southern regions of Russia.
However, due to legal restrictions, CRLs are not objects of increased secrecy. Staff publishes articles and defends dissertations, which allows you to track some of their work on open sources.
Publications testify
The Viruses magazine (Viruses, 2019, 11, 356, doi: 10.3390 / v11040356) published in April 2019 the work of a group of American and Kazakh scientists about a new strain of coronavirus, the reservoirs of which are local bats. The work was carried out in the framework of the KZ-33 project of the US Department of Defense Threat Reduction Agency on the Almaty Central Defense League (Tropical Medicine and Infection Disease, 2019, 4, 136, doi: 10.3390 / tropicalmed4040136).
The project was led by Professor Gavin James Smith of Duke University (USA), closely associated with the National Institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the US Department of Health.
The source of the Kazakh publication reported that the biosamples containing coronavirus delivered to the CRL in the winter of 2020
“at the molecular level, they completely coincide with the strain, the study of which was started in the laboratory about two years ago and which, according to his observations, should not all this time was to leave the TsRL.
It was a joint development led by scientists from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as part of the final stage of training a large group of Kazakh epidemiologists. ”
According to the publication (Viruses, 2019, p.2), the mentioned American studies of coronavirus were carried out in April – May 2017, that is, strictly on time, called the source. Moreover, both the species studied in 2017 and COVID-19 belong to coronaviruses transmitted by bats.
Thus, the “anonymous stuffing” is increasingly beginning to resemble the message of a person who well knows the nature of working with coronavirus in recent years.
The coincidences are sufficient for a serious verification of the kinship of these diseases by biologists, and we will move further – in the wake of those who conducted this study.
Following the bat
A careful study of the materials of the American CRL in Kazakhstan raises many questions. The KZ-33 project is entitled “Middle East Respiratory Coronavirus Syndrome”, and it is completely unclear why it should be studied on bats in Central Asia.
Even stranger is the ability of the aforementioned Professor Gavin Smith to find bats carrying the coronavirus literally anywhere. In 2017, he published a study (Transboundary Emerg Dis, Dec; 64 (6): 1790–1800. Doi: 10.1111 / tbed.12568) on coronavirus bats in Singapore. Having arrived in Kazakhstan, he also found the same object of study, although the republic was not famous for such a disease before. You might think that his personal mouse flock with his own coronavirus flies behind him.
It is curious that the study involved the resources of the Research Institute for Biological Safety is located in the Kordai district of the Zhambyl region of Kazakhstan. In the same area lives a large community of Chinese-speaking Dungans, who are traditionally engaged in shuttle trade with the PRC, including smuggling.
“There is a suspicion that in Kazakhstan, bats were artificially infected with coronavirus, strains of which were obtained in the Middle East, in the natural distribution area of the disease.”
A genetically modified sample, later called COVID-19, could cross the border by accident or as a result of intentional manipulations.
The recent mass pogrom in the Dungan villages of the Kordai region can also be considered as an attempt to “clean up” witnesses of the work of American military biologists in the region in 2017-2019, their negligence or intentional actions to import COVID-19 to China.
Nobody seems to have cleaned up Professor Smith, but the Duke Institute, of which he is still an employee, seemed to have forgotten about its existence.
The coronavirus pandemic on the site of the scientific center is commented on by many researchers, but not by Gavin Smith, who has studied the spread of a very similar disease in East and Central Asia for at least four years.
Why such secrecy? Perhaps, in order not to remind once again about explorations in Almaty.
Basis for suspicion
Bioterrorism is a serious charge. But the facts gathered suggest a high probability of the involvement of a group of American and Kazakh biologists in the outbreak of coronavirus in China.
“We urge the Kazakh authorities to create a commission with the participation of representatives of WHO, as well as microbiologists from the PRC and CIS countries, with the aim of investigating the work of American specialists in the medical center and the Zhambyl region.”
We also urge international organizations, including UN agencies, to request information from the US Department of Defense about the nature of biological research in Kazakhstan funded by this agency.
Awareness of ivermectin’s efficacy and its adoption by physicians worldwide to successfully treat COVID-19 have grown exponentially over the past several months. Oddly, however, even as the clinical trials data and successful ivermectin treatment experiences continue to mount, so too have the criticisms and outright recommendations against the use of ivermectin by the vast majority, though not all, of public health agencies (PHA), concentrated largely in North America and Europe.
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and other ivermectin researchers have repeatedly offered expert analyses to respectfully correct and rebut the PHA recommendations, based on our deep study and rapidly accumulated expertise “in the field” on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. These rebuttals were publicized and provided to international media for the education of providers and patients across the world. Our most recent response to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and others recommendation against use can be found on the FLCCC website here.
In February 2021, the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD), an international meeting of physicians, researchers, specialists, and patients, followed a guideline development process consistent with the WHO standard. It reached a consensus recommendation that ivermectin, a verifiably safe and widely available oral medicine, be immediately deployed early and globally. The BIRD group’s recommendation rested in part on numerous, well-documented studies reporting that ivermectin use reduces the risk of contracting COVID-19 by over 90% and mortality by 68% to 91%.
A similar conclusion has also been reached by an increasing number of expert groups from the United Kingdom (UK),Italy, Spain, United States (US), and a group from Japan headed by the Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of Ivermectin, Professor Satoshi Omura. Focused rebuttals that are backed by voluminous research and data have been shared with PHAs over the past months. These include the WHO and many individual members of its guideline development group (GDG), the FDA, and the NIH. However, these PHAs continue to ignore or disingenuously manipulate the data to reach unsupportable recommendations against ivermectin treatment. We are forced to publicly expose what we believe can only be described as a “disinformation” campaign astonishingly waged with full cooperation of those authorities whose mission is to maintain the integrity of scientific research and protect public health.
The following accounting and analysis of the WHO ivermectin panel’s highly irregular and inexplicable analysis of the ivermectin evidence supports but one rational explanation: the GDG Panel had a predetermined, nonscientific objective, which is to recommend against ivermectin. This is despite the overwhelming evidence by respected experts calling for its immediate use to stem the pandemic. Additionally, there appears to be a wider effort to employ what are commonly described as “disinformation tactics” in an attempt to counter or suppress any criticism of the irregular activity of the WHO panel.
The WHO Ivermectin Guideline Conflicts with the NIH Recommendation
The FLCCC Alliance is a nonprofit, humanitarian organization made up of renowned, highly published, world-expert clinician-researchers whose sole mission over the past year has been to develop and disseminate the most effective treatment protocols for COVID-19. In the past six months, much of this effort has been centered on disseminating knowledge of our identification of significant randomized, observational, and epidemiologic studies consistently demonstrating the powerful efficacy of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Our manuscript detailing the depth and breadth of this evidence passed a rigorous peer review by senior scientists at the U.S Food and Drug Administration and Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Recently published, our study concludes that, based on the totality of the evidence of efficacy and safety, ivermectin should be immediately deployed to prevent and treat COVID-19 worldwide.
The first “red flag” is the conflict between the March 31, 2021, WHO Ivermectin Panel’s “against” recommendation and the NIH’s earlier recommendation from February 12th of a more supportive neutral recommendation based on a lower amount of supportive evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy at that time.
Two flawed lines of analysis by the WHO appear to account for this inconsistent result:
The WHO arbitrarily and severely limited the extent and diversity of study designs considered (e.g., retrospective observational controlled trials (OCT), prospective OCTs, epidemiological, quasi-randomized, randomized, placebo-controlled, etc.).
The WHO mischaracterized the overall quality of the trial data to undermine the included studies.
The Severely Limited Extent and Diversity of Ivermectin Data Considered by the WHO’s Ivermectin Panel
The WHO Ivermectin Panel arbitrarily included only a narrow selection of the available medical studies that their research team had been instructed to collect when formulating their recommendation, with virtually no explanation why they excluded such a voluminous amount of supportive medical evidence. This was made obvious at the outset due to the following:
No pre-established protocol for data exclusion was published, which is a clear departure from standard practice in guideline development.
The exclusions departed from the WHO’s own original search protocol it required of Unitaid’s ivermectin research, which collected a much wider array of randomized controlled trials (RCT).
Key Ivermectin Trial Data Excluded from Analysis
The WHO excluded all “quasi-randomized” RCTs from consideration (two excluded trials with over 200 patients that reported reductions in mortality).
The WHO excluded all RCTs where ivermectin was compared to or given with other medications. Two such trials with over 750 patients reported reductions in mortality.
The WHO excluded from consideration 7 of the 23 available ivermectin RCT results. Such irregularities skewed the proper assessment of important outcomes in at least the following ways:
Mortality Assessment
WHO Review: Excluded multiple RCTs such that only 31 total trials deaths occurred; despite this artificially meager sample, an estimate of up to a 91% reduction in the risk of death was found.[1]
Compared to the BIRD Review: Included 13 RCTs with 107 deaths observed and found a 2.5% mortality with ivermectin vs. 8.9% in controls; estimated reduction in risk of death=68%; highly statistically significant, (p=.007).
Assessment of Impacts on Viral Clearance
WHO Review: 6 RCTs, 625 patients. The Panel avoided mention of the important finding of a strong dose-response in regard to this outcome.
This action in (i) is indefensible given that their Unitaid research team found that among 13 RCTs, 10 of the 13 reported statistically significant reductions in time to viral clearance, with larger reductions with multiday dosing than single-day, consistent with a profound dose-response relationship.[2]
Adverse Effects
WHO: Only included 3 RCTs studying this outcome. Although no statistical significance was found, the slight imbalance in this limited sample allowed the panel to repeatedly document concerns for “harm” with ivermectin treatment.
Compare (a) to the WHO’s prior safety analysis in their 2018 Application for Inclusion of Ivermectin onto Essential Medicines List for Indication of Scabies:
“Over one billion doses have been given in large-scale prevention programs.”
“Adverse events associated with ivermectin treatment. are primarily minor and transient.”[3]
The WHO excluded all RCTs studying the prevention of COVID-19 with ivermectin, without supporting rationale. Three RCTs including almost 800 patients found an over 90% reduction in the risk of infection when ivermectin is taken preventively.[4]
The WHO excluded observational controlled trials (OCT), with 14 studies of ivermectin. These included thousands of patients, including those employing propensity matching, a technique shown to lead to similar accuracy as RCTs.
One large, propensity-matched OCT from the US found that ivermectin treatment was associated with a large decrease in mortality.
A summary analysis of the combined data from the 14 available ivermectin OCTs found a large and statistically significant decrease in mortality.
The WHO excluded numerous published and posted epidemiologic studies, despite requesting and receiving a presentation of the results from one leading epidemiologic research team. These studies found:
In numerous cities and regions with population-wide ivermectin distribution campaigns, large decreases in both excess deaths and COVID-19 case fatality rates were measured immediately following the campaigns.
Countries with pre-existing ivermectin prophylaxis campaigns against parasites demonstrate significantly lower COVID-19 case counts and deaths compared to neighboring countries without such campaigns.
Assessment of the Quality of the Evidence Base by WHO Guideline Group
The numerous above actions minimizing the extent of the evidence base were then compounded by the below efforts to minimize the quality of the evidence base:
The WHO mischaracterized the overall quality of the included trials as “low” to “very low,” conflicting with numerous independent expert research group findings:
An international expert guideline group independently reviewed the BIRD proceeding and instead found the overall quality of trials to be “moderate.”
The WHO’s own Unitaid systematic review team currently grade the overall quality as “moderate.”
The WHO graded the largest trial it included to support a negative assessment of ivermectin’s mortality impacts as “low risk of bias.” A large number of expert reviewers have graded that same trial as “high risk of bias,” detailed in an open letter signed by over 100 independent physicians.
We must emphasize this critical fact: If the WHO had more accurately assessed the quality of evidence as “moderate certainty,” consistent with the multiple independent research teams above, ivermectin would instead become the standard of care worldwide, similar to what occurred after the dexamethasone evidence finding decreased mortality was graded as moderate quality, which then led to its immediate global adoption in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 in July of 2020.[5]
Further, The WHO’s own guideline protocol stipulates that quality assessments should beupgraded when there is the following:
a large magnitude of effect (despite their data estimating a survival benefit of 81%, the low number of studies and events included allowed them to dismiss this finding as “very low certainty”) or;
evidence of a dose-response relationship. The WHO shockingly omits the well-publicized reports by their Unitaid research team of a powerful dose-response relationship with viral clearance.
In sum, the WHO’s recommendation that “ivermectin not be used outside clinical trials” is based entirely upon:
the dismissal of large amounts of trial data;
the inaccurate downgrading of evidence quality; and
the deliberate omission of a dose-response relationship with viral clearance.
Consequently, these actions formed the basis of their ability to avoid a recommendation for immediate global use.
Even more surprising is that based on their “very low certainty” finding, the panel goes on to “infer” that “most patients would be reluctant to use a medication for which the evidence left high uncertainty regarding effects on outcomes they consider important.”
This statement is insupportable in light of the above actions. No patient could ever rationally consent to a trial in which they were acutely ill and would be subject to the possibility of receiving a placebo, once informed of: the large amount of relevant and positive trials that the WHO removed from consideration, their avoidance of reporting a large dose-response relationship, and their widely contradicted “very low certainty” grading of large mortality benefits. Such a trial would result in a historic ethical research violation, causing both a widespread loss of life and a resultant loss of trust in PHAs and research institutions for decades to come.
The many methods employed by the WHO to distort the evidence base and arrive at a non-recommendation are made even more suspicious and questionable by the following:
The WHO GDG did not hold a vote on the use of ivermectin. This highly irregular decision was purportedly based on the Ivermectin Panel’s “consensus on evidence certainty.”
Unitaid Sponsors allegedly inserted multiple limitations and weakened the conclusions in the preprint, systematic review manuscript by the Unitaid research team, which has recently led to formal charges of scientific misconduct.
BIRD: Approved ivermectin in March, 2021, for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 based on 21 RCTs and 2,741 patients.
Conclusion
As expert clinician-researchers in society, we are firmly committed to ensuring that public health policy decisions derive from scientific data. Disturbingly, after extensive analysis of the recent WHO ivermectin guideline recommendation, we could not arrive at a credible scientific rationale to explain the numerous irregular, arbitrary, and inconsistent behaviors documented above. Further, after consultation with numerous physicians, guideline reviewers, legal experts, and veteran PHA scientists, we identified two major socio-political-economic forces that serve as the main barrier influences preventing ivermectin’s incorporation into public health policy in major parts of the world. They are:
1) the modern structure and function of what we will describe as “Big Science” and;
2) the presence of an active “Political-Economic Disinformation Campaign.”
“Big Science”
Also known as “Big RCT Fundamentalism,” Big Science reflects a dramatic shift in the practice of modern evidence-based medicine (EBM). Beginning before COVID, it has since rapidly evolved into the current system that more tightly meshes the entities of “Big Pharma,” “Big PHA’s/Academic Health Centers” (AMC), “Big Journals,” “Big Media,” and “Big Social Media” into the public health system’s efforts at guiding patient care, research and policy.
The structure and function of “Big Science” in COVID-19 is most simply represented as follows:
Only arbitrarily defined, “large, well-designed” RCTs (Big RCT), generally conducted on North American or European shores, can “prove” the efficacy of a medicine.
Only Big Pharma/Big PHA/AMCs have the resources/infrastructure to conduct Big-RCTs. (Many equate Big PHA/AMC with Big Pharma, given the funding source of the former.)
Only Big RCTs by Big Pharma or Big PHA/AMC can publish study findings in high-impact, high-income country medical journals (Big Journals).
Only medicines supported by Big Journal publications are deemed to have “sufficient evidence” and “proven efficacy” to then be recommended by Big PHAs.
Only medicines recommended by Big PHAs are covered by “Big Media” or escape censorship on “Big Social Media.”
Conversely, repurposed, off-patient medications such as ivermectin do not attract Big PHA or Big Pharma sponsors to conduct the mandatory Big RCT. Given this structural handicap, many effective medicines including ivermectin are consequently incapable of ever meeting Big PHA standards for approval in such a system. In the case of ivermectin, it is then considered, first by Big PHAs, then throughout Big Media and Big Social media, to be “unproven” given it lacks “sufficient evidence” and is thus heavily censored from public discussion and awareness. Mentions of ivermectin on Big Social Media led to the removal of a popular Facebook group (“Ivermectin MD Team” with over 10,000 followers). Additionally, all YouTube videos mentioning ivermectin in treatment of Covid-19 were removed or demonetized, as well as Twitter pages locked. Further, in Big Media, even the most credentialed independent and expert groups who recommend ivermectin based on a large body of irrefutable evidence are labeled as “controversial” and purveyors of “medical misinformation.”
A health system structured to function in this manner is clearly vulnerable to and overly influenced by entities with financial interests. Further, in Covid, such systems have evolved into rigidly operating via top-down edicts and widespread censoring. This allows little ability for emerging scientific developments not funded by Big Pharma to be disseminated from within the system or through media or social media until years later when, and if, a Big RCT is completed. This barrier has presented as an enduring horror throughout the pandemic given the widespread loss of life caused by the systematic withholding of numerous rapidly identified, safe and effective, repurposed medicines for fear of using “unproven therapies” without “sufficient evidence” for use. Alternatively, and for the first time in many physicians’ careers, those who seek to treat their patients with such therapies, based on their professional interpretation of the existing evidence are restricted by their employers issuing edicts “from above.” They are then forced to follow protocols that rely predominantly on pharmaceutically engineered therapeutics.
It must be recognized that distinct from “regulatory” agencies such as the FDA, whose system often relies upon the primary importance of a “Big RCT,” stronger foundations used by PHAs are available. One of the long-standing tenets of modern evidence-based medicine is that the highest form of medical evidence is a “systematic review and meta-analysis” of RCTs and not a sole Big RCT. Disturbingly, not one of the Big PHAs mention this established principle or their long-standing reliance on such evidence-based practices for issuing recommendations. In the case of ivermectin, they willfully ignore the multiple published expert meta-analyses of ivermectin RCTs, including almost two dozen trials and thousands of patients, reporting consistent reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.
These improvements are found consistently and repeatedly, no matter the RCT design, size, or quality, and from varied centers and countries throughout the world. All studies were done without any identified conflict of interest with the vast majority of double-blind, single-blind, quasi-randomized, open-label, standard of care comparison, combination therapy comparisons, etc., reporting benefits. Satoshi Omura, Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of ivermectin, wrote in his team’s recent review paper that “the probability of this judgement on ivermectin’s superior clinical performance being false is estimated to be 1 in 4 trillion.” This supports our public warnings against further “placebo-controlled trials” given the near absolute certainty of harm to research subjects included in a placebo Big RCT.
Conversely, despite sitting atop the highest form of medical evidence, many non-regulatory Big PHAs around the world cry out for a Big RCT. This is while avoiding the issuance of even one of the several “weaker” recommendation options available to them in the setting of a low-cost, widely available medicine with an unparalleled safety profile and a constantly surging humanitarian crisis, even in the interim. Insufficient evidence, unproven — these are comments from WHO, NIH, Europe’s EMA, South Africa’s SAPHRA, France’s ANSM, United Kingdom’s MHRA, and Australia’s TGA.
Most disturbing to contemplate is our estimation that if the use of penicillin in bacterial infection were to have been tested in these same numbers and types of trials in the 1940s, the graphical display of benefits would look nearly identical to those found with ivermectin. Further, the U.S Cures Act of 2016, “specifically designed to accelerate and bring new innovations and advances faster and more efficiently to the patients who need them” emphasized the importance of using various forms of “real-world evidence” data to aid in regulatory decision-making. We can find no evidence of an organized effort to examine the more than 14, often large OCTs that show evidence of the substantial beneficial use of ivermectin. Further, no PHA has cited the numerous convincing epidemiological analyses that find rapidly falling case fatality rates following ivermectin distribution campaigns.
With the lack of a credible explanation for the absence of even a weak recommendation for ivermectin in the setting of widespread increased death rates from COVID-19, numerous citizens have speculated that this can only be explained by the presence of an active disinformation campaign by entities with nonscientific and largely financial objectives dependant on the non-recognition of ivermectin’s efficacy. We explore the near certainty of this occurring below.
Active Political-Economic “Disinformation” Campaign
“Disinformation” campaigns, best described in the article, “The Disinformation Playbook,” are initiated when independent science interferes with or opposes the interests of corporations or policymakers. Although thankfully rare, in certain cases these entities will actively seek to manipulate science and distort the truth about scientific findings that imperil their profit or policy objectives. First developed by the tobacco industry decades ago, these deceptive tactics include the following;
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass scientists speaking out with results inconvenient for industry.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia/professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government processes to influence policy inappropriately.
Numerous examples of the above disinformation tactics by corporations and policymakers, particularly within the pharmaceutical industry, have been documented:
Georgia Pacific publishing “fake science” on the dangers of asbestos (The Fake)
Most worrisome is that ivermectin appears to be up against one of the largest financial and global policy oppositions in modern history, including but not limited to:
Numerous Big Pharma companies and sovereign nations selling billions of vaccine doses.
Scale of market for vaccines now exponentially increasing due to the developing market for “booster shots” against rapidly appearing variants.
Concerns of numerous Big Pharma and Big PHA’s that if ivermectin is approved as effective treatment for COVID-19, EUAs for all vaccines would be revoked.
Disinformation: EMA erroneously claims effective concentrations are unattainable.
Numerous Big Pharma/Big PHA concerns that ivermectin’s potential as an alternative to vaccines may increase vaccine hesitancy and disrupt mass vaccination rollouts.
Opponents include large philanthropic sponsors with global vaccination goals.
Disinformation: WHO Panel does not review ivermectin prevention trials.
Numerous Big Pharma company investments in novel, engineered therapies (i.e., oral antivirals by Merck and Pfizer and Gilead) directly compete with ivermectin.
Disinformation: Merck places a post on their website, without scientific supporting evidence or named scientist authors that: “No evidence of either a mechanism of action, clinical efficacy or safety in COVID-19 exists.”
Big Pharma company’s (Astra-Zeneca) investment into a long-acting antibody product for prevention and treatment of COVID-19, which competes with ivermectin.
Big Pharma’s Remdesivir demand would rapidly decline once hospitalizations were to decrease after ivermectin approval.
Based on the lack of a rational explanation for the above actions by WHO, Merck, FDA, and Unitaid, we conclude that they result from an active disinformation campaign, executed both through the PHA’s, media and the WHO Guideline group recommendations. As highly published researchers, we find the allegations of scientific misconduct in the writing of the WHO/United research team’s meta-analysis manuscript to be deeply disturbing. It clearly represents a disinformation tactic with an intent to distort and diminish the reporting of a large magnitude benefit on mortality among many hundreds of patients. Further, Merck’s demonstrably and blatantly false statements against ivermectin deserve no further discussion. It is yet another entry into the disturbing historical record of actions committed by a Big Pharma entity with the primary intent of protecting profit at the expense of the welfare of global citizens.
For These Compelling and Irrefutable Reasons, The FLCCC Makes a Call to Action
This call to action is no longer just to health authorities, but to citizens everywhere to fight back against these disinformation tactics. We find the advice of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to be an excellent guide to action in this regard:
Global Citizens
Share the playbook with your social media networks when you see new examples like those outlined above.
Set the record straight. When you see someone spreading disinformation on a topic, counter it. There are millions around the world who either have studied the data or have experience with the potent efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19. It is important to correct false assertions.
Consider divesting your retirement funds and other investments from companies engaging in disinformation.
If a governmental or NGO scientist, report actions that diminish their role in policymaking.
Media
Avoid false equivalencies that distort scientific consensus.
Correct the record when scientific information is misrepresented, particularly by Big PHA/Big Pharma.
Report abuses of science in government.
As an expert group of ivermectin researchers, we are unsure of what else to offer in order to correct or counteract this misrepresentation of an important drug. Our belief is that, of the above actions, the most effective counter to the disinformation campaign would be that a whistleblower become active from within WHO, the FDA, the NIH, Merck, or Unitaid. This moment in history demands a man or woman with the courage and conviction to step forward. Urgently.
In both the interests of humanity and to motivate and inspire such a citizen of the world, we leave you with the words of Albert Einstein: “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them and do nothing.”
[1]Special emphasis must be placed on this decision; selecting only trials where very few deaths occurred.
(n.b., the number of events observed within trials is a primary criterion for judging the “certainty of evidence”). This action provides almost the entire basis for the panel’s assessment of a “very low certainty of evidence.” It is in effect, a “smoking gun,” one of the many actions above demonstrating that the primary objective of the Panel was to recommend against use of ivermectin. [2]This omission is the second most important action allowing the panel to find a “very low certainty of evidence,” given that, per WHO protocol, if a dose-response relationship is found, the certainty of evidence must be upgraded. [3]Special emphasis must be placed on the harm of excluding trials data supporting ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19. If the preventive efficacy of ivermectin were to be known or accepted, this would allow deployment in regions without vaccines.
[4]British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel (2021). The BIRD Recommendation on the Use of Ivermectin for COVID-19. Full report. https://tinyurl.com/u27ea3y
[5]The FLCCC Alliance recommended, as well as gave U.S. Senate testimony in support of, the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 months before this announcement, during the prolonged period when all PHAs recommended against its use
Sincerely,
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
Pierre Kory, MD
Keith Berkowitz, MD
Paul E. Marik, MD
Fred Wagshul, MD
Umberto Meduri, MD
Scott Mitchell, MBChB
Joseph Varon, MD
Eivind Vinjevoll, MD
Jose Iglesias, DO
Seeing through the COVID-19 spin is a challenge even for those who have been writing and talking for years about the need to limit Big Pharma’s influence on health policy and law. Perhaps the greatest change I have seen in vaccine regulation, policymaking and law over the past four decades has been the development of public-private business partnerships between Big Pharma and the government.1 2 3 4 5 That seismic change has affected how new vaccines are developed, licensed and regulated and is influencing what we see happening today.6 7
Since the coronavirus pandemic was declared by government officials in early 2020, lawmakers have been persuaded to build the entire global pandemic response around a single experimental biological product.8 9 10 That single product is generating billions of dollars in profits for liability free drug companies and their partners.11 12 The COVID-19 spin is reaching dizzying new heights every day,13 14 with fundamental facts about the experimental product’s risks and failures getting lost in the hard sell.
At dinner time, if you turn on any major television network in the U.S., you will see that the evening news has turned into one long COVID vaccine commercial infused with a heavy dose of fear mongering. Before the pandemic declaration, we had learned to ignore prescription drug advertising in-between getting news of the day. Now newscasters and TV docs are Pharma’s new COVID “vaccine” sales reps and the only way to get away from the 24/7 sales pitch is to turn off the TV.
Billions of Dollars Paid to TV Networks for DTC Pharma Ads
We should not be surprised. The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow direct to consumer pharmaceutical product advertising.15 16 17 In this country. Big Pharma pays US television networks five billion dollars per year to push use of drugs and vaccines.18
Taking a page out of Big Tobacco’s old book and upping the ante, Big Pharma has become a business partner of government.19 The COVID business deal is perhaps the single biggest one in the history of public health programs.20 21 22
Already wealthy drug companies were given at least nine billion dollars from the. government to develop experimental COVID vaccines in record breaking time,23 shaving five to 10 years off the normal vaccine development, testing and licensing process.24 25 But that wasn’t enough. Congress also handed companies a liability shield from lawsuits whenever the product government paid them to produce fails to work as advertised or a person is hurt by using it.26
If you or a loved one dies or is permanently injured by an experimental or soon-to-be FDA licensed COVID vaccine, you cannot sue the drug company who made it, even if there is evidence the company could have made it less reactive or more effective.
Big Pharma Pays Big Tech Billions of Dollars for Ads, Censorship Campaigns
If you are searching for relief from the hype by turning off the TV and turning on your computer, you will be disappointed. The COVID vaccine ad campaign is in high gear online, especially on social media platforms. The Thought Police hired by Big Tech to censor information that does not conform with pre-approved pandemic narratives are making sure you do not have an opportunity to carefully weigh the vaccine’s benefits and risks.27 28 29
Rational thinking on the World Wide Web is no longer tolerated and neither is freedom of speech. The Internet has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a consumer’s worst nightmare.
Big Pharma and its business partners have paid a lot of money to Big Tech to eliminate freedom of thought and speech online. Right now the weapon of choice is a social media censorship campaign to de-platform dissenters, including reputable charitable organizations like the National Vaccine Information Center publishing well referenced information.30 31 32 The Internet Thought Police are especially upset when anyone talks about reports of serious vaccine complications and deaths, but reports about COVID-19 disease complications and deaths are allowed without restrictions.33
As COVID social distancing regulations have kept more people at home and on their electronic devices, the healthcare and pharma industry has poured more money into direct to consumer digital ads.34 In 2020, drug and vaccine manufacturers funneled about 10 billion dollars into digital advertising that we view on our computers, tablets and cell phones.35 36
How much of Big Tech’s decision to ghost dissenters from search engine results and de-platform social media accounts is influenced by an infusion of direct to consumer advertising dollars from Big Pharma?37
American Taxpayer Pays for COVID-19 Vaccine Ads
This year, the American taxpayer is also paying for TV and digital advertising to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine.38 On April 1, 2021, the government announced a three billion dollar COVID vaccine ad campaign39 to get make sure that every American gets vaccinated, a national ad campaign that is using community and religious leaders, as well as celebrities,40 41 to reach into every community to boost vaccine uptake in stores,42 sports arenas,43 schools44 and churches.45
Right now, Pfizer and Moderna, the two U.S. corporations manufacturing experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines are leading beneficiaries of the free advertising paid for by tax dollars. The first to secure an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA, Moderna counts the federal National Institutes for Health as a business partner,46 while Pfizer partnered with the German company BioNTech.47 Together, Moderna and Pfizer have captured market share and, by the end of 2020, Pfizer had achieved a 180 percent increase in revenue48 49 and Moderna had scored an eye watering 3,900 percent increase. 50 51
So what has the COVID vaccine advertising blitz done so far, other than convincing half of all adults to get at least one dose of the vaccine by mid-April 2021?52
The most notable achievement of the COVID vaccine campaign has been to keep everyone in a constant state of fear and confusion about what is true and what is false.53 There are so many misunderstandings and false impressions out there about the biological product manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer, a product that most people call a vaccine and other call a therapeutic drug but I call a cell disrupter biological.
No Long Term Safety Studies of Experimental mRNA Vaccines
Whatever you want to call it, the experimental mRNA technology that Moderna and Pfizer employed to create the product has not yet been licensed by the FDA to prevent infections in humans. 54 It is a genetic engineering technology that radically departs from the production methods used for two centuries to make live attenuated and inactivated viral and bacterial vaccines.55 It is an experimental technology that injects synthetic RNA directly into cells and, in effect, attempts to turn the human body into a vaccine manufacturing machine.56 57
There are no long-term studies58 evaluating the range of effects at the cellular and molecular level on the biological and genetic integrity of humans who receive the product. Nobody knows if it will, over time, negatively affect normal immune function and cause autoimmune and other chronic inflammatory conditions in the body,59 60 61 or provoke enhanced disease in vaccinated persons encountering mutated versions of the coronavirus in the future.62
Myth: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Vaccines Have Been Proven to Prevent Infection and Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
What are the two biggest myths that have been generated by the advertising campaign being conducted with Pharma and taxpayer dollars?
The first big myth is that if you get two doses of the mRNA COVID vaccine, you will get artificial immunity and cannot be asymptomatically or symptomatically infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and you will not be able to infect others who come in physical contact with you: you dutifully got vaccinated and now you are immune.63 That is a normal assumption because that is what vaccines are supposed to do, but it is a false assumption.
The Emergency Use Authorization the FDA gave to Pfizer and Moderna was not granted based on scientific evidence that the product prevented infection and transmission of SARS-Cov-2.64 65 In fact, the FDA directed manufacturers in the summer of 2020 to make a product that had at least a 50 percent efficacy rate in either preventing or reducing severity of COVID-19 disease.66
The companies chose to apply for an EUA based on nine months of clinical trial data that the product prevents people from developing severe symptoms of COVID-19 disease 67 and reduces the likelihood they will have serious complications leading to hospitalization and death – not that it prevents infection and transmission. There is a difference.
TAKE HOME FACT: COVID-19 vaccines were not designed and have not yet been proven to prevent infection and transmission of the new coronavirus in the majority of recipients. Apparently, that is why public health officials are telling vaccinated people they have to continue wearing masks and social distancing just like unvaccinated people.68 69
Myth: It is “Good” to Feel Bad After mRNA Covid-19 Shots Because It Means the Vaccine is “Working”
The second big myth being perpetuated by COVID spin is that when you have strong reactions to a COVID-19 shot, it is “good” because it means the vaccine is “working.”70 71
The companies and public health officials admit that the mRNA vaccines are reactive and that the majority of people, especially younger people, who get vaccinated will experience reactions strong enough to require a day or two of recovery and even time off work.72 73 But there is not one credible scientific study published in the medical literature demonstrating that high fevers, chills, headache, joint and muscle aching, disabling fatigue and other symptoms are “good” for the body and indicate the body is successfully producing artificial immunity.
In fact, strong reactions to pharmaceutical products like drugs and vaccines are usually something to be concerned about and a reason to exercise caution, especially with repeat doses. 74 75 76
More concerning are the 68,000 adverse event reports following COVID-19 vaccinations, including over 2600 deaths, 77 that have been reported as of April 8, 2021 to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) created under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.78 79 80 81 More than 70 percent of the reaction reports occurred in people between 17 and 65 years old. And that may be just the tip of the iceberg because one government funded study found that less than one percent of vaccine reactions are ever reported to the vaccine reaction reporting system82 created under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Although Pfizer, Moderna and the government admit that messenger RNA COVID vaccines can cause a lot of reaction symptoms like fever, body pain and disabling fatigue,83 84 85 they adamantly deny that the shots cause sudden death86 87 88 or blood clots89 90 91 92 and bleeding disorders like immune thrombocytopenic purpura,93 cardiac and respiratory arrest,94 95 and other very serious health problems.96
Where is the biological mechanism science that proves it is only a coincidence when people suddenly die within minutes, 97 days or weeks of being given a COVID shot98 and that none of the tens of thousands of bad health outcomes being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System are causally related?99
Where is science backing up the claim that feeling so bad you can’t get out of bed or go to work after getting vaccinated is “good” because being in pain is evidence that the product is effective?
TAKE HOME FACT: COVID-19 shots cause reactions in the majority of people.100 101 There is no scientific evidence that having strong reactions to a drug or biological means that the product is effective.102
Government health officials have said that COVID-19 vaccines will be approved for use in children of any age by early 2022.103 With the majority of adults suffering very strong COVID vaccine reactions, especially younger adults,104 105 why are there plans to give the messenger RNA cell disrupter biological to infants and young children when the CDC says the majority of chilren with COVID-19 disease either have mild symptoms or no symptoms at all? 106
The enormous sums of money that Big Pharma and government is spending on television and digital ad campaigns to make sure that every child and adult in America gets a COVID-19 vaccine is creating false impressions and assumptions. When public policy precedes the science and aggressive advertising campaign blur the lines between facts and myths, truth gets lost in the spin and nobody is safe.
Go to NVIC.org and learn more about SARS-Cov-2 and the biological product being referred to as the COVID-19 vaccine on our new coronavirus information pages.
Go to NVICAdvocacy.org, where you can learn how to help defend informed consent rights in your state so you can make voluntary decisions about vaccination for yourself and your minor children.
References
1 Fisher BL. Here Comes the 21st Century Cures Act: Say Goodbye to Vaccine Safety Science. NVIC Newsletter July 21, 2015.
2 Ramsey L, Friedman LF. The government agency in charge of approving drugs gets a surprising amount of money from the companies that make them. Business Insider Aug. 17, 2016.
3 Fisher BL. End Pharma Liability Shield Endangering Public Health and Human Rights. NVIC Newsletter Nov. 8, 2016.
4 The Vaccine Reaction. Drug Companies Pay FDA and NIH to Fast Track and Market Vaccines. Sept 28, 2018.
6 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public–private partnership responses to COVID-19 and future pandemics: Proceedings of a workshop—in brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2020.
7 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). COVID-19: Federal Efforts to Accelerate Vaccine and Therapeutic Development But More Transparency Needed on Emergency Use Authorization. Nov. 17, 2020.
8 National Institutes of Health. NIH clinical trial of investigational vaccine for COVID-19 begins. NIH Press Release Mar. 16, 2020.
9 Lurie N, Saville M et al. Developing Covid-19 Vaccines at Pandemic Speed. NEJM Mar. 31, 2020
10 Fisher BL. COVID-19 Meltdown and Pharma’s Big Money Win. NVIC Newsletter Apr. 1, 2020.
11 Kollewe J. From Pfizer to Moderna: Who’s making billions from Covid-19 vaccines? The Guardian Mar. 6, 2021.
12 Egan M. Pfizer and Moderna could score $32 billion in Covid-19 vaccine sales – in 2021 alone. CNN Dec. 11, 2020.
13 Megan Garnett Coyle. Ad Tech Leaders Unite to Measure the Ad Council & COVID Collaborative’s COVID-19 Vaccine Education Initiative – the Largest PSA Campaign in US History. Businesswire Mar. 30. 2021.
History
14 Medical Xpress. US launches major COVI vaccination ad campaign. Apr. 1, 2021.
15 Lee B. How is Consumer Drug Advertising Regulated in the United States? June 17, 2019.
16 Harvard Health Publishing. Do not get sold on drug advertising. February 2017.
17 Rapaport L. U.S. health care industry spends $30 billion a year on marketing. Reuters Jan. 8, 2019.
18 Kanski A. Nielsen: Pfizer tops list of biggest pharma advertisers in 2018. Medical Marketing & Media Apr. 2, 2019.
19 Johnson B. Up in Smoke: Documents from the Annals of Tobacco Marketing. Ad Age Mar. 29, 2010.
20 Meyer R. Profiteering off a Covid vaccine. World of DTC Marketing Mar. 25, 2021.
21 Kollewe J. From Pfizer to Moderna: Who’s making billions from Covid-19 vaccines? The Guardian Mar. 6, 2021.
22 Dunleavy BP. Pfizer CEO says need for third dose of COVID-19 vaccine ‘likely.’ UPI Apr. 16, 2021.
23 Weintraub EW. Federal spending on COVID-19 vaccine candidates tops $9 billion, spread among 7 companies. USA Today Aug. 10, 2020.
24 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Vaccine Development, Testing and Regulation. The History of Vaccines Jan. 17, 2018.
25 Broom D. 5 charts that tell the story of vaccines today. World Economic Forum June 2, 2020.
26 Fisher BL, Parpia R. 2005 PREP Act and 1986 Act Shield Vaccine Manufacturer’s from Liability. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 10, 2020.
27 Fisher BL. The New Internet Police Protecting You from Freedom of Thought and Speech. NVIC Newsletter Dec. 3, 2018.
28 Caceres M. When Even the New York Times Doesn’t Pass Facebook Muster. The Vaccine Reaction Dec. 28, 2020.
29 Mercola J. New Thought Police NewsGuard Is Owned by Big Pharma. Jan. 24, 2020.
30 Fisher BL. Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free. NVIC Newsletter Jan. 26, 2021.
31 O’Neill J. White House working with social media giants to silence anti-vaxxers. New York Post Feb. 19, 2021.
32 Attkisson S. CENSORED: The National Vaccine Information Center. Mar. 8, 2021.
33 Presson J. Questions linger about COVID-19 vaccine. The Mountaineer Feb. 12, 2021.
34 Droesch B. US Healthcare and Pharma Is Among the Fastest-Growing Digital Ad Spenders. EMarketer Oct. 9, 2020.
35 Droesch B. US Healthcare and Pharma Is Among the Fastest-Growing Digital Ad Spenders. EMarketer Oct. 9, 2020.
36 Silk B. Why Digital Is the Future for Pharma Advertising. Ethoseo Oct. 15, 2019.
37 Robbins R. Get ready for more drug ads: Facebook is making a bid for pharma dollars. STAT News Nov. 1, 2016.
38 Holmes K, Kaufman E. HHS begins national vaccine ad campaign with You Tube ads. CNN Dec. 4, 2020.
39 DHHS. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Launches Nationwide Network of Trusted Voices to Encourage Vaccination in Next Phase of Public Education Campaign. HHS Press Office Apr. 1, 2021.
40 Facher L. The White House is set to unveil a wide-reaching billion-dollar campaign aimed at convincing every American to get vaccinated. STAT News Mar. 15, 2021.
41 Associated Press. Celebrities Make a Stand for COVID-19 Vaccines on TV Special. Voice of America Apr. 16, 2021.
43 Hoffman DC. Mass COVID-19 Vaccination Site Set to Open at PPG Paints Arena. KDKA2 Mar. 15, 2021.
44 Archie A. This Indiana school district is helping high schoolers get a COBID-19 vaccine before prom. Louisville Courier Journal Apr. 13, 2021.
45 AdventHealth News. AdventHealth Partners with Churches to Provide COVID-19 Vaccines. Apr. 20, 2021.
46 Collins FS. Statement from NIH and BARDA on the FDA Emergency Use Authorization of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. NIAID Dec. 18, 2020.
47 Pfizer Inc. Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Further Details on Collaboration to Accelerate Global GOVIC-19 Vaccine Development. Businesswire Apr. 9, 2020.
48 Macrotrends. Pfizer Revenue 2006-2020. January 2021.
49 NASDAQ. Pfizer sees about $15 billion in 2021 sales from COVID-19 vaccine. Feb. 2, 2021.
50 NASDAQ. Moderna Earnings Date, Estimates & History. MarketBeat Apr. 16, 2021.
51 CBS News. Moderna forecasts $18.4 billion in COVID-19 vaccine sales. Feb. 28, 2021.
52 Yen H, Mattise J. Half of US adults have received at least one COVID-19 shot. Associated Press Apr. 18, 2021.
53 Syal A. Is It Safe to Visit Grandparents After Getting COVID Vaccine? NBC Feb. 14, 2021.
54 Pfizer Inc. The Facts About Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine. Jan 6, 2021.
55 Banks MA. What Are mRNA Vaccines, and Could They Work Against COVID-19? Smithsonian Magazine Nov. 16, 2020.
56 Trafton A. Explained: Why RNA vaccines for Covid-19 raced to the front of the pack. MIT News Office Dec. 11, 2020.
57 Langreth R, Krege N. Moderna Wants to Transform the Body Into a Vaccine-Making Machine. Bloomberg News Aug. 11, 2020.
58 Harris R. Long-Term Studies of COVID-19 Vaccines Hurt by Placebo Recipients Getting Immunized. NPR Feb. 19, 2021.
59 Pardi N, Hogan MJ et al. mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2018; 17: 261-279.
60 Jaffe-Hoffman M. Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long- term? Jerusalem Post Nov. 17, 2020.
61 Odell J. Messenger RNA (nRNA) SARS Coronavirus ‘Vaccines’ and their Potential Autoimmunity Part 2. Bioregulatory Medicine Institute Feb. 24, 2021.
62 Arvin AM, Fink K et al. A perspective on potent antibody-dependent enhancement of SARA-Cov-2. Nature 2020; 584: 352-363.
63 Healthline. How Long Does Immunity Last After COVID-19?: How vaccine-induced immunity after receiving immunization works. Feb. 24, 2021.
66 Heidt A. FDA to Require 50 Percent Efficacy for COVID-19 Vaccines. The Scientist July 1, 2020.
67 Crist C. Early Vaccines Will Prevent Symptoms, Not Virus. WebMD Oct. 28, 2020.
68 Syal A. Is It Safe to Visit Grandparents After Getting COVID Vaccine? NBC Feb. 14, 2021.
69 Rouan R. Fact Check: CDC recommends masks in most cases even after COVID-19 vaccines. USA Today Apr. 22, 2021.
70 Crow S. The CDC Says These 3 Side Effects Mean Your Vaccine Is Working. Yahoo Feb. 15, 2021.
71 Finberg R. No, vaccine side effects don’t tell you how well your immune system will protect you from COVID-19. Yahoo News Apr. 19, 2021.
72 Hendler C. Severe Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccine Close Schools in Michigan, Ohio and New York. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 8, 2021.
73 Farber M. Is the COVID-19 vaccine effective if you don’t have a reaction to it? Fox News Feb. 9, 2021.
74 Bircher AJ. Symptoms and danger signs in acute drug hypersensitivity. Toxicology 2005; 209(2): 201-207.
75 Davidovici BB, Wolf R. The challenge of drug-rechallenge: Facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol 2010; 281(3): 249-253.
76 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals. Highlights of Prescribing Information for INFANRIX – diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine adsorbed suspension: Contraindications, Warnings and Precautions. Nov. 20, 2019.
77 MedAlerts. Search the VAERS Database.
78 FDA. VAERS Overview. Mar. 29, 2019.
79 CDC. Vaccine Safety: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
80 LaVigne P. The Story Behind MedAlerts. NVIC Newsletter Aug. 20, 2013.
81 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs: National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA)/National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program (NCVIP). The History of Vaccines Jan. 17, 2018.
82 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. Electronic System for Public Health Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. AHRQ 2011.
83 The Vaccine Reaction. Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Provokes COVID-Like Symptoms in Phase 3 Trial. Oct. 19, 2020.
84 Fisher BL. Over 3,000 “Health Impact Events” After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinations. The Vaccine Reaction Dec. 22, 2020.
85 Gale J. COVID-19 vaccine side effects hit some recipients hard; that’s not all bad. Here’s what to do about them. Seattle Times Mar. 11, 2021.
86 Sforza T. Health care worker dies after second dose of COVID vaccine, investigation underway. Orange County Register Feb. 4, 2021.
87 Percy N. Kaiser says Pfizer vaccine likely not cause of Calfornia woman’s death. Mercury News Feb. 15, 2021
88 Brown E. Fact Check: Have 966 People Died After Receiving the COVID vaccine? Newsweek Mar. 8, 2021.
89 Goldstein S. Blood clots prevalent with Pfizer and Moderna Vaccine as with Astra Zeneca’s study. Dow Jones/Market Watch Apr. 16, 2021.
90 Ma A. Schuster-Bruce C. Johnson & Johnson asked other drugmakers to help it study blood-clot risks, and Moderna and Pfizer decline, report says. Business Insider Apr. 16, 2021.
91 Scribner H. Recent vaccine news should improve further confidence, doctor says. Deseret News Apr. 15, 2021.
92 Beusekom MV. Study: COVID much more likely than vaccines to cause blood clot. CIDRAP Apr. 15, 2021.
93 Fisher BL. Miami Obstetrician Develops Bleeding Disorder, Dies After Getting COVID-19 Vaccine. The Vaccine Reaction Jan. 11, 2021.
94 Israel National News. Mexican doctor hospitalized after receiving COVID-19 vaccine. Jan. 2, 2021.
95 Microsoft News. 72-year old man sent to ICU following COVID-19 vaccination; MOH confirms cardiac arrest wasn’t caused by vaccine. Feb. 19, 2021.
96 Fisher BL. Healthy Mom, 39, in Utah Dies of Organ Failure Days After Moderna COVID Vaccination. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 15. 2021.
97 The Vaccine Reaction. Woman Dies Immediately After Getting COVID-9 Vaccine in Virginia. Feb. 21, 2021.
98 Haglage A. No evidence COVID-19 vaccines cause death epidemiologists say: ‘Coincidences are going to happen.’ Yahoo Feb. 4, 2021.
99 Rouan R. Fact check: CDC data on adverse effects of vaccine cannot determine cause. USA Today Apr. 8, 2021.
100 CDC. Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events: Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 13, 2020.
101 FDA. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 18, 2020.
102 Finberg R. No, vaccine side effects don’t tell you how well your immune system will protect you from COVID-19. Yahoo News Apr. 19, 2021.
103 Thomas N. Fauci expects almost all children to be eligible for Covid-19 vaccines by first quarter 2022 at the latest. CNN Apr 18, 2021.
104 Koweek M. Younger adults are having harsher Covid vaccine side effects. WHIO TV Mar. 5, 2021.
105 Bendix A. Why you can expect more severe vaccine side effects if you’re younger or a woman. Business Insider Apr. 6, 2021.
106 CDC. COVID-19 in Children and Teens: What You Need to Know. Mar. 17, 2021.
On February 13, 1960, France carried out its first nuclear test in Algeria’s southern Reggane region. According to official statistics, 17 nuclear tests were carried out in total over the next 6 years. The area remains affected, and local scientists say that radioactive contamination has caused genetic mutations and irreversibly changed the region.
There are no official statistics on the number of victims. The only figures can be found in the records kept by the French representative of the local church, which lists 42,000 victims of nuclear tests. Three years ago, the French Ministry of Defense issued a statement, putting the number at 27,000 people. The victims include French soldiers as well as local Algerians who lived in the surrounding areas. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
