Aletho News


Bill Gates’ media control dream

By Keean Bexte | The Counter Signal | May 19, 2022

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has doled out over $319 million in grants, awards, and charity to media organizations, including $38 million to so-called “investigative journalism” centres.

According to Mint Press News (MPN), which sorted through over 30,000 documents, Bill Gates has given roughly $38 million to investigate journalism centres aimed at training journalists. Of this sum, over $20 million has gone to the International Center for Journalists, which “builds the expertise and digital skills journalists need to deliver trustworthy news essential for vibrant societies.”

The generous donations given to the ICFJ over several years have been given with the express purpose of producing journalists who focus on “data-driven health and development news reports to help African media to better contribute to setting development agendas and furthering public accountability,” according to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s website.

Producing health-obsessed investigative journalists is a common trend with Gates.

According to the Foundation’s website, the Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism received its grant ($3,800,357) to “support sustained high-quality, evidence-based, and solutions-oriented media coverage of global health and development issues in Primary Health Care systems, Agriculture & Financial Inclusion.”

Other recipients of over $1 million include The Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting ($2,432,552) to “support editorial projects focused on global health issues,” Fondation EurActiv Politech ($2,368,300), International Women’s Media Foundation ($1,500,000), Center for Investigative Reporting – $1,446,639, InterMedia Survey institute ($1,297,545), and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism ($1,068,169).

Put simply, it appears Bill Gates wants to install a personal army of professional scrutineers in various media outlets that disseminate his position on healthcare and propaganda about public officials who deviate.

Gates also, of course, funds the journalism programs of several universities, including Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, the University of California Berkeley, Tsinghua University, Seattle University, Rhodes University, and Montclair State University.

Harvard University (of which Gates is a dropout), the University of Southern California, Boston University, and Ahmadu Bello University have also received money from Gates’ Foundation to take on various media projects.

Producing new journalists isn’t the only area in media that Gates is focusing on, though. He also targets experienced journalists in legacy media organizations. According to MPN’s report, a total of $166.2 million has been given to well-known legacy media organizations.

“The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gateses hearts. For example, the $3.6 million CNN grant went towards “report[ing] on gender equality with a particular focus on least developed countries, producing journalism on the everyday inequalities endured by women and girls across the world,” while the Texas Tribune received millions “to increase public awareness and engagement of education reform issues in Texas.” Given that Bill is one of the charter schools’ most fervent supporters, a cynic might interpret this as planting pro-corporate charter school propaganda into the media, disguised as objective news reporting,” reports MPN.

Just over one decade ago, Bill Gates was under fire for his attempt to control the media through spread-out donations, but this fire seems to have flickered out until recently.

“Beyond their subject matter, these [health report stories] have something else in common: They were all bankrolled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,” the Seattle Times wrote in 2011.

“Better-known for its battles against global disease, the giant philanthropy has also become a force in journalism.”

“The foundation’s grants to media organizations such as ABC and The Guardian, one of Britain’s leading newspapers, raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?”

Unsurprisingly, the Seattle Times and the Blethen Corporation do not appear to have ever received money from Bill Gates.

May 22, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Pfizer Document Dump Shows Doctor With Ties to Gates Foundation Deleted Trial Participant’s Vaccine Injury

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 18, 2022

An 80,000-page cache of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sheds light on Pfizer’s extensive vaccine trials in Argentina, including the unusually large size of the trials and the story of a trial participant whose vaccine reaction was “disappeared.”

The case of Augusto Roux in Argentina suggests that in at least one instance, a trial participant whose symptoms were determined to be connected to the COVID-19 vaccine was later listed, in official records, as having experienced adverse events that were not related to the vaccination.

Vaccine trials in Argentina also appear to have glossed over adverse events suffered by other trial participants, and the potential connection between the adverse events and the vaccine.

The FDA on May 2 released the latest cache of documents, which pertain to the Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer’s vaccine, as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act request filed in August 2021.

As previously reported by The Defender, the documents included Case Report Forms from Pfizer COVID vaccine trials in the U.S., and the “third interim report” from BioNTech’s trials conducted in Germany, both of which listed adverse events sustained by participants in the U.S. and German trials.

Many of these adverse events were indicated as being “unrelated” to the vaccines — even in instances where the patients were healthy or otherwise had no prior medical history related to the injuries they sustained.

Story of ‘disappeared patient’ goes public

Several bloggers and online investigators called into question various aspects of the Argentine vaccine trials, pointing out the number of participants in the Argentine trials dwarfed that of other, typically smaller trials at other locations in different countries.

They also pointed out the large number of participants appeared to have been recruited to the trial in a remarkably short time, and questioned the connections between one of the key figures of the Argentine trial to vaccine manufacturers, Big Pharma and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The large number of trial participants in Argentina may be related to the fact that the trial appears to have been held simultaneously in 26 hospitals.

The large number of participants is revealed in another of the documents released this month, where on page 2,245, the list of randomized participants at trial site 1231 begins, while on page 4,329, the list of participants at trial site 4444 begins.

Site 1231 refers to the main trial site location and 4444 (page 24) most likely refers to the disparate hospitals participating in the trial outside the main location.

Commenting on the revelation, blogger David Healy wrote:

“About 5,800 volunteers were enrolled, half getting the active vaccine. This is almost 4 times more than the next largest centre in this trial.

“Amazingly 467 doctors were almost instantly signed up and trained as assistant investigators in the study.”

In all, 4,501 patients participated in the Argentine trials, representing 10% of all Pfizer trial participants worldwide.

Complete information about adverse events during this extensive trial in Argentina does not appear to have been released as of this writing.

However, Roux’s experience has since become public.

Roux, often referred to as the “disappeared” patient, volunteered for the trial (volunteer number 12312982) and received his first dose of the Pfizer vaccine on Aug. 21, 2020.

According to Healy, Roux “felt pain and swelling in his arm right after the injection. Later that day he had nausea, difficulty swallowing, and felt hungover.”

After a series of symptoms, Roux — during a clinical trial visit on Aug. 23, 2020 — was classified as experiencing a “toxicity grade 1 adverse effect.”

He nevertheless received his second dose on Sept. 9, 2020.

According to Healy:

“On the way home by taxi, he started feeling unwell. At 19:30, he was short of breath, had a burning pain in his chest and was extremely fatigued. He lay on his bed and fell asleep. He woke up at 21:00 with nausea and fever (38-39 C) and was unable to get out of bed due to the fatigue.

“Over the next two days, he reports a high fever (41 C) and feeling delirious.

“On September 11, he was able to get out of bed and go to the bathroom when he observed his urine to be dark (like Coca-Cola). He felt as if his heart expanded, had a sudden lack of breath and fell unconscious on the floor for approximately 3 hours.

“Once he recovered, he felt tired, was uncomfortable, had a high heart rate on minor movement, was dizzy when changing posture. He had a chest pain which radiated to his left arm and back.”

On Sept. 12, 2020, Roux was admitted to the Hospital Alemán, where he stayed for two days. It was initially believed he had COVID-19, but he tested negative for the virus. His symptoms also were found to not correspond with viral pneumonia.

After a series of X-rays, CT scans and urine tests, Roux was discharged Sept. 14, 2020, after being diagnosed with an adverse reaction — specifically, an unequivocal pericardial effusion — to the coronavirus vaccine (high probability), according to his discharge summary.

Doctor who altered Roux’s record had ties to Gates, NIH, Big Pharma

However, on Sept. 17, Dr. Fernando Polack, Pfizer’s lead investigator for the Argentine trials according to a Pfizer document released in December 2021, reported in Roux’s record that his “hospitalization was not related to the vaccine.”

Even after Roux’s discharge, his health difficulties continued. As reported by Healy:

“On November 13 [2020], he had negative IgG and IgM SARS COV-2 (QML technique), which is unusual post vaccine.

“On February 24, 2021, a liver scan showed a minor degree of abnormality. In March 2021 and February 2022, his liver enzymes remained abnormal.”

Ultimately, Roux lost 14 kilograms (30.8 pounds) in a period of three to four months, and continued to suffer from fever and bouts of breathlessness for several months afterward.

Polack, who reported Roux’s hospitalization as unrelated to the vaccination, is known for his close ties with various vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

For instance, he is listed as the lead author in a Dec. 31, 2020, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article on the purported efficacy of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

According to Healy, Polack also appears to be the founder of iTRIALS, a trial site management company, and another organization located at the same physical headquarters, the Fundación INFANT.

Healy wrote:

“When COVID struck Argentina, [Polack] and his Fundación became involved in a trial of immune plasma, taken from patients who had recovered from COVID, given to patients who had recently acquired the disease.

“In May 2020 he speculated that this would make COVID like an ordinary cold, and the Gates Foundation would offer financial support. He used high-profile press conferences to disseminate his exciting message.”

The conclusion of the study published in the NEJM following the plasma study reads:

“Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund; Dirección de Sangre y Medicina Transfusional del Ministerio de Salud number, PAEPCC19, Plataforma de Registro Informatizado de Investigaciones en Salud number, 1421, and number, NCT04479163.”

According to Healy, “[a] subsequent systematic review and meta-analysis failed to confirm these findings, noting ‘very serious imprecision concerns.’”

Healy pointed out that Polack, in his NEJM disclosure statement, did not indicate any conflict of interest or financial interest in the COVID-19 vaccine trials in Argentina, but:

“Polack reported grants from Novavax and personal fees from Janssen, Bavarian Nordic A/S, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Medimmune, Vir Bio[technology], Ark Bio, Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work.

“At least eight of these companies are engaged in RSV vaccine research in babies and pregnant women. Fernando has mentioned a combined RSV, flu and COVID vaccine.”

And, in relation to Polack’s relationship with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Healy reported:

“[Polack] also doesn’t mention his extensive financial involvement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This organization supports industry vaccine trials including Covid and RSV. Fernando is heavily involved through his Gates-sponsored Fundación INFANT in Buenos Aires in RSV trials and research.

“Gates sunk $82,553,834 into Novavax’s RSV vaccine ResVax which was shown to be ineffective in clinical trials in pregnant women.”

Polack’s own bio from a 2017 medical conference states “[h]is work is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Thrasher Research Fund, the Optimus Foundation and other international organizations.”

That same year, Polack testified at an FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, where he “acknowledged having financial interests in or professional relationships with some of the affected firms identified for this meeting, namely Janssen [producer of the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine], Novavax, and Bavarian Nordic.”

According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, Polack “also happens to be a consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC),” and “a current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

May 20, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The vaccine cajolers, Part 6: Indoctrinating children is the key

This is the sixth and final part of Paula Jardine’s investigation into the planning behind ensuring vaccine acceptance and countering vaccine ‘hesitancy’. You can read Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, Part 4 here and Part 5 here. 

TCW Defending Freedom | May 16, 2022

COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for emergency use to prevent Covid infection. The ‘vaccine confidence’ people found the word ‘protection’ resonated more with the public than ‘prevention’; accordingly the vaccines were promoted as protecting the community from hospitalisation and death. People who could authentically ‘sell gratitude’ for getting on board with the Covid campaigns for masking or accepting vaccines, the trusted health professionals, social influencers, and ‘people like me’ were deployed to persuade the public. But any talk of a moral obligation to accept the vaccines was to be avoided as they thought it invoked strong negative responses.

Dr Heidi Larson, who set up the ‘Vaccine Confidence Project’ at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, admitted there are challenges, especially when it comes to defining what is misinformation. ‘Social media users may pose questions or instil doubt without saying something that is explicitly false. If someone asks “Do you really know what’s in a vaccine?” we cannot legally or ethically remove it,’ she said. ‘Getting the balance right between freedom of expression, privacy and public health is a major challenge. The erosion of public trust is part of a wider distrust of authorities, experts and industries, but vaccine advocates could lead the way in rebuilding resilience.’

Such reservations have not stopped efforts to police information shared on social media. The authoritarian reflex is to monitor and censor dissent. In 2018, the EU introduced a code of practice on disinformation, and committed to supporting what it called an independent network of fact-checkers, stimulating quality journalism and promoting media literacy. Facebook, Google and Twitter agreed to collaborate by monitoring ‘misinformation’ to ‘ensure the protection of European values and security’.

In June 2021 with the Covid vaccine programme six months old, Věra Jourová, the EU’s vice president for values and transparency, said in a statement: ‘We decided to extend this programme, because the amount of dangerous lies continues to flood our information space and because it will inform the creation of the new generation Code against disinformation.’

To borrow the words of the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, the authorities are reaching the point where ‘unless you hear it from us it’s not the truth’.

Last August BBC Media Action, generously funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, began a campaign to counter ‘disinformation’ on Covid-19 vaccines, advancing the compromised World Health Organisation (WHO) as the only viable authority on this topic. It is little wonder that the fact checkers themselves began to come under scrutiny, for example by the Critic.

The vaccine safety net approach of counterbalancing was no longer considered sufficient. ‘Inoculation theory’, an idea from the field of public relations, was deployed: ‘Inoculation involves debunking false claims before people encounter them. Then, their first encoding of misinformation is strongly tied with the notion that it is false, equipping people with arguments that can be used to refute and dismiss it. The two main elements of inoculation are explicit warnings that there are attempts to mislead people and refutations of misinformation.’

Dr Emily Brunson, an anthropologist who studies vaccine confidence issues, said: ‘By exposing people to a message that counters your argument and then refuting it, you can help people become more resilient to harmful or inaccurate messaging they may hear later. And just as vaccines only work when they’re administered before someone is exposed to the disease, inoculation theory works when your message is heard first.’

There’s an old-fashioned name for inoculation theory. It is indoctrination. Children, whose minds are the most malleable, are becoming the target. In 2014, the WHO Sage working group laid some of the blame for vaccine hesitancy on the education system saying, ‘Historically, children have not been systematically educated in schools about vaccines, resulting in some in the adult population (i.e. parents and adults) who do not appreciate their benefits to health and societal value for their children and for themselves.‘ Larson agrees: ‘We need to do a better job in schools, helping children to understand essential concepts about how immune systems work to fight disease and how vaccines help build our body’s own protection against infection.’

With the Covid vaccines, applying ‘social norms’ has become part of the persuasion playbook. Lisa Fazio, a psychologist who participated in the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Covid communications expert group, said: ‘It’s useful to find the influencers and get them to change their mind, which can have big downstream effects. So, for example, if you were working in schools, you would target the kids who have the most connections with other kids and have them be the ones implementing change. Identifying those influencers is going to have a bigger effect than just random people.’

If the Covid vaccine campaign exposes anything 18 months in, with some people having received fourth and even fifth doses, as any protection conferred by the hastily developed vaccines is short-lived, it’s that the idea that vaccines can be used to eradicate diseases is a pipe dream. It demonstrates too that the War on Microbes persists and that, with Covid, the opportunity for a further coercive tool to encourage uptake – the vaccination pass – can be added to its arsenal.

Today the EU is leading the world on the development of these digital certificates. According to Ursula von der Leyen, ‘the development of a vaccine certificate within Europe helps ensure the functioning of the single market, as well as enable Europeans to move freely for work or tourism.

If these certificates achieve permanence, they will remove any remnant of choice over vaccination. The future won’t be Mahler’s holistic vision of health, instead it threatens to be one of being endlessly and needlessly medicated with vaccines, the ultimate fulfilment of Grant’s vision of universal vaccination. Dystopia for the greater good.

May 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Vaccine Cajolers, Part 2: Creating the demand

By Paula Jardine | TCW Defending Freedom | May 12, 2022

This is the second instalment of Paula Jardine’s five-part investigation into the planning behind ensuring vaccine acceptance and countering vaccine ‘hesitancy’. You can read Part 1, published yesterday, here. 

IN 2010, as GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (now called The Vaccine Alliance) was setting out on its ambitious ten-year strategic plan called the Decade of the Vaccine, Dr Heidi Larson, a professor of anthropology, risk and decision science, set up the ‘Vaccine Confidence Project’ at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It was funded by vaccine manufacturers and their European lobby group in conjunction with the European Commission, UNICEF and University College London. The ubiquitous Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is unusually absent from this list. The project’s purpose was to challenge vaccine scepticism.

Larson explained: ‘I have a pretty mixed group – my team includes psychologists, anthropologists, social media analysts, mathematical modellers, and they all ask different kinds of questions. What we have in common is that we’re all working on the same challenge of trying to understand why people are questioning and refusing vaccines more than they used to.’

With the number of approved vaccines on national immunisation schedules increasing and with dozens of new vaccines in the pipeline, GAVI’s game plan had become ‘demand generation’, in other words getting people actively to seek out vaccination (the intention being for people to create bottom-up pressure on their governments). Strategic Objective 2 of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), the implementation plan for the Decade of the Vaccine, which remains today, is that ‘individuals and communities understand the value of vaccines and demand immunisation as both their right and responsibility.’

The GVAP reframing of vaccination in terms of rights and responsibilities transforms vaccination from an individual (private) medical choice (even in the context of a national public health programme) into a civic rights issue, pitting choice against a (spurious) socio-political ordinance. Writing on her blog, Larson explains, ‘Immunisation, since its beginning, has always walked a tense line between individual rights to choice and societal rights to health. A tense line between rights and responsibilities – the right to choose, with the caveat that it does not injure those around you.’

The principal value of this utilitarian collectivist perspective is that it displaces, for ‘the greater good’ (as defined by certain elites), the well-established medical ethics principle that the benefit of a procedure to each individual recipient must outweigh the risk. The assumption here is that for an act to be morally right it has to be judged only on its consequences for the majority. And since vaccines are supposed to induce immunity and consequently prevent transmission of infectious diseases, mass vaccination in pursuit of disease eradication must be for the greater good. As the utilitarians say, the end justifies the means.

Winning confidence in vaccines, which means winning trust in their safety and efficacy, is therefore imperative. From the health system administering them to the motives of the policy makers, this is the requisite of demand generation. When and where this fails has been dubbed ‘hesitancy’, the reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated despite the availability of vaccines (as though vaccines were, per se and in all circumstances, an unquestionable good regardless of the chequered history of many). According to a World Health Organisation working group report, ‘As hesitancy undermines demand, to achieve the GVAP defined vaccine demand goal, countries will need to address hesitancy. High rates of hesitancy mean low demand.’

Vaccines have been recognised by courts in the US, including its Supreme Court, as unavoidably unsafe products. However, based on the precedent of smallpox eradication, public health agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) remain determined to use vaccination to eradicate diseases and therefore argue that the overall value of vaccines to the community outweighs the risk to any single individual.

Diseases are no longer just diseases, we’re told they’re vaccine preventable diseases. Evidence in the medical literature of people who fail to respond to vaccination (primary failure) or of waning protection following vaccination (secondary failure) is simply ignored. The single greater good concept has provided the justification for mandatory vaccination and, in Covid times, for restricting the freedoms of those who exercise their right to bodily autonomy by refusing a medical procedure. Those unlucky enough to be injured or die from vaccine administration are what the American bioethicist Dr Leroy Walters has called ‘injured recruits in the war on infectious disease’.

Despite the rationale that society benefits from universal vaccination, the burden of vaccine injury is largely borne by individuals. It’s now standard practice for vaccine manufacturers to bear no liability for their products. The precedent of indemnification was set by the ill-fated 1976 US swine flu vaccination campaign when the US government stepped in because insurers balked. It paid out almost as much in compensation for vaccine injuries as it spent on the programme, thanks to an active surveillance reporting system for vaccine injuries. Active surveillance has never been repeated. Today only 27 countries have compensation programmes for vaccine injuries, a small improvement on the dozen that had them when GAVI was created in 1999. As for the rest, their injured citizens are collateral damage in the Rockefeller-conceived War on Microbes.

May 12, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The Vaccine Cajolers, Part 1: How jab zealots set out to stifle sceptics

THIS is the first of a special five-part investigation into the way in which, and why, winning ‘vaccine confidence’ became the primary goal of world health agencies, regardless of need, efficacy or risk. 

By Paula Jardine | TCW Defending Freedom | May 11, 2022

Since the UK’s Covid-19 vaccine programme began in December 2020, 140million doses have been administered to 55million people, representing 73 per cent of the population.

The high level of acceptance of these vaccines, which were developed in one tenth of the normal time frame – and in the case of the mRNA vaccines using a novel technology never previously licensed for use in either humans or animals – is a remarkable testament to the level of public trust in vaccines.

It is arguably the end product of two decades of work, first by GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (now called The Vaccine Alliance) and recently by initiatives such as that of the London-based Vaccine Confidence Project, established to deliver the goal of universal childhood vaccination set 40 years ago by UNICEF, the United Nations children’s welfare organisation.

GAVI was set up in 1999  ‘to save children’s lives and protect people’s health through the widespread use of safe vaccines, with a particular focus on the needs of developing countries.’

It was founded at the instigation of Dr Seth Berkeley, its current CEO, who was then working for the Rockefeller Foundation. ‘We will have an outside body that can bring in industry (which the World Health Organisation can’t legally do), do advocacy and build a truly international alliance,’ he said.

The Vaccine Alliance, a public-private partnership financed by vaccine manufacturers, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and national governments, aimed to give impetus to the universal vaccination campaign and to revitalise the fortunes of a stagnating market for new vaccines. The UK government is currently is largest single donor, having made a five-year pledge in 2020 of £1.65billion.

Its initial focus was on gaining the ‘long-term commitment of client governments and donors to full immunisation’, the latter implying vaccination on schedule and for every possible disease. This was different to its twin, the concept of universal vaccination.

When GAVI was launched, a UNICEF employee and anthropologist, Dr Heidi Larson – who would later found the Vaccine Confidence Project – was chosen to lead its vaccine communications and advocacy work.

She later explained how the nature of the advocacy was soon to evolve away from the initial focus on client governments.

‘There was a growing epidemic of individuals and communities and even some government officials questioning and refusing vaccines,’ she said. ‘I ended up getting the nickname “Director of UNICEF’s Fire Department,” because it turned out to be a crisis management position, because people weren’t taking vaccines.

‘I saw what seemed to be a trend: The northern Nigeria boycott of the polio program made it into the international press, but it wasn’t one place, it was everywhere.

‘I didn’t have time in my day job to investigate what was going on there, because there was not a quick fix. That’s when I put together a proposal and got some seed money and founded the Vaccine Confidence Project.’

There is no seminal document laying out a case for universal vaccination. As a public policy objective, it originated with the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). Its end goal is to eradicate diseases one-by-one via vaccination, the so-called vertical approach to public health introduced by the RF soon after its founding in 1913. It was part of a package of cheap, technological quick fixes for health care in developing countries originally called Selective Primary Health Care.

These interim measures were necessary because matching the industrialised world’s standards of sanitation, clean water, nutrition and health care to reduce the disease burden was ‘prohibitively expensive’.

An RF trustee, James P Grant, had been appointed executive director of UNICEF in 1980, operating it as a rival to the vaccine-agnostic World Health Organisation of his era.

In 1980, in an article on the eradication of smallpox, WHO director-general Dr Halfdan Mahler did not even mention vaccines. Rather, he stressed: ‘Smallpox eradication is a sign, a token, of what can be achieved in breaking out of the cycle of ill-health, disease and poverty.’

But Grant engaged in what the New York Times called ‘tireless, peripatetic proselytising’, using his UNICEF pulpit to zealously promote vaccination.

With rearguard reinforcement from the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC), by 1984 he had brought the WHO, the agency meant to provide the technical lead, on board with ‘universal’ vaccination.

Today, UNICEF is a quasi-arm of the pharmaceutical industry. Figures in its most recent Immunisation Roadmap document show it is now responsible for distributing 40 per cent of vaccines in developing countries, while its 659 staff spend more than half their time managing immunisation programmes and supply chain logistics.

In Part 2 tomorrow, I will explain how GAVI’s ten-year strategic plan, the Decade of the Vaccine, set out to eliminate vaccine scepticism.

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kickbacks, Corruption & Scandal: The History of the CDC

By Michael Bryant | OffGuardian | April 29, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was founded in 1946 as a backwater quasi-governmental agency with a negligible budget and a handful of employees tasked with a simple mission: “prevent malaria from spreading across the nation.”

Seventy-five years later it has metastasized into a multi-billion dollar bureaucratic behemoth that oversees and controls virtually all aspects of public health programs, policies and practices across the United States.

The CDC is the primary US national public health agency tasked with “protecting America from health, safety and security threats” and advertises that it will “increase the health security of our nation.”

Guidelines and recommendations by the CDC set the standards for mainstream medicine in America and are considered the de facto rules by which public health departments and most institutions throughout the country must operate.

The CDC’s pledge to the American people vows that it will:

“be a diligent steward of the funds entrusted to our agency, base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively and place the benefits to society above the benefits to our institution.”

This high-minded mission statement gives the impression that the CDC will, above all else, work diligently and honestly to protect the health of all Americans. A careful review of the CDC’s history and current mode of operation indicate a stark contrast between these noble words and how the CDC actually functions.


“The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with bio-pharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.”
Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

In the mainstream media vortex, questioning the state religion of CDC decrees and guidelines lands one firmly in the camp of the “conspiracy-minded,” accused of practicing sorcery or some manner of medieval medical quackery.

In the minds of many Americans the CDC represents the final word on “all matters health-related.” To question this omnipotent bureaucratic agency is to challenge sacred health commandments and cast doubt on the medical establishment itself.

The widely accepted belief about the CDC holds that it is a governmental agency which functions outside of health industry relationships and consequently operates free from the monied interests of the health management sector. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite this reputation, further scrutiny reveals that the CDC falls far short of its stated purpose. As the scope and budget of this agency has ballooned over the years, including a war chest of corporate contributions, we have to ask ourselves, “Does the CDC fulfill its mission statement of protecting public health or is it now just another bloated quasi-governmental agency that works on behalf of its donors?”

Contrary to its disclaimer that “the CDC does not accept commercial support”, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported, in 2015, that “the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly.”

A petition filed in 2019 by several watchdog groups contends that the CDC’s assertion that it is free from influence peddling and has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products” are “indisputably false.”

The petition goes a step further asserting that the CDC, “knows the claims are false, because it has procedures to address from whom and under what circumstances it accepts millions of dollars from contributors, including manufacturers of commercial products.”

This allegation is supported by multiple examples from the CDC’s own Active Program’s Report.

For instance, Pfizer Inc. contributed $3.435 million since 2016 to the CDC Foundation for a program on the prevention of Cryptococcal disease.

Programs like these became commonplace as early as 1983 largely due to Congressional authorization which allowed the CDC to accept “external” gifts:

made unconditionally… for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.”

Despite the caveat that these donations must be geared towards public health, the reality is these contributions come with strings attached. As noted earlier in the BMJ report, Pharma funds given to the CDC for specific projects return to Pharma pockets via marketing and sales.

The spigot of funding initiated through Congressional permission would open full blast a decade later, with the creation of the CDC Foundation.


The CDC Foundation was created by Congress in 1992 and incorporated two years later to “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

Once established, the CDC Foundation became the primary pass-through mechanism utilized by a cornucopia of corporate interests to exert influence over various aspects of the CDC. Large pharmaceutical companies contributed millions of dollars each year to the “separate, philanthropic CDC Foundation.“

The CDC Foundation would then “donate philanthropically” Big Pharma contributions to the CDC itself. This sleight of hand ensured the CDC could maintain they never accepted money directly from Big Pharma.

A decade after its inception the Foundation had quickly raised $100 million in private funds “to enhance the CDC’s work.”

Some have argued that once this avalanche of monied interests was unleashed, the agency itself was transformed into the primary marketing arm of the Pharmaceutical Industry creating a hornet’s nest of ethics violations, outright corruption and opened up a slew of questions as to who the CDC actually works for.

Was the CDC Foundation truly established as a philanthropic enterprise or as a way to conceal conflicts of interest?

Did this massive influx of corporate cash cede control of the CDC to the medical and pharmaceutical industry and their financiers, allowing them to control the direction of “public” health policy?

Would business oriented, for-profit medical programs, using the CDC’s imprimatur, come to dominate public health policy?

Those questions seemed to have their answer in the CDC Foundation’s donor list which reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of pandemic profiteers and philanthropic mercenaries.

Major sources of cash for the Foundation include the GAVI Alliance, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Fidelity Investments, Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust, Microsoft Corporation, Imperial College London, Johns Hopkins University, Google, Facebook, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Johnson & Johnson Foundation and the omnipresent ‘do-gooders’ at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


In 2016 a group of concerned senior scientists from within the CDC wrote a letter to then CDC Chief of Staff Carmen Villar alleging that the CDC “is being influenced and shaped by outside parties… [and this] is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

The transgressions cited in that letter include: “questionable and unethical practices,” “cover up of inaccurate screening data” and “definitions changed and data cooked to make the results look better than they were.”

The scientists went on to note that the CDC, “essentially suppressed [findings] so media and/or Congressional staff would not become aware of the problems” and “CDC staff [went] out of their way to delay FOIAs and obstruct any inquiry.”

The indictment also claimed that CDC representatives had “irregular relationships” with corporate entities that suggested direct conflicts of interest.

While criticisms of the CDC have increased in recent years, a look back at their history reveals a long list of misconduct and questionable practices.


As far back as 1976 the CDC was creating mass medical terror campaigns in order to procure increased funding and justify mass vaccination programs. The infamous 1976 swine flu scandal sought to inoculate 213 million Americans for a pandemic that didn’t exist. By the time the program collapsed in late 1976, 46 million Americans were needlessly injected– despite the knowledge that neurological disorders were associated with the vaccines. This resulted in thousands of adverse events including hundreds of incidents of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

This deception was meticulously exposed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes.

At the onset of the mass vaccination program, Dr. David Sencer – then head of the CDC – when pushed on national TV, admitted there had only been “several [swine flu] cases reported worldwide and none confirmed.” When asked if he had encountered “any other outbreaks of swine flu anywhere in the world”, he bluntly answered, “No.”

The program moved forward.

In contrast to the CDC’s publicly stated position as “protector of public health,” this type of misconduct would become standard operating procedure and serve as the template for future invented pandemics.

A growing rap sheet of scandals would come to define the CDC’s existence.

  • In 1999 the CDC was accused of misspending $22.7 million appropriated for chronic fatigue syndrome. Government auditors said they could not determine what happened to $4.1 million of that money and the CDC could not explain where the money went.
  • In 2000, the agency essentially lied to Congress about how it spent $7.5 million that had been appropriated for research on the hantavirus. Instead the CDC diverted much of that money into other programs. “One official said the total diverted is almost impossible to trace because of CDC bookkeeping practices, but he estimated the diversions involved several million dollars.”
  • In 2009, in the midst of the now infamous H1N1 swine flu hoax the CDC was forced to recall 800,000 doses of swine flu vaccine for children for a pandemic that never materialized.
  • In 2010 Congress discovered that the CDC “knowingly endangered DC residents regarding lead in the drinking water.” A Congressional report found that the CDC did not properly warn residents of high levels of lead in the DC drinking water and “left the public health community with the dangerous and wrong impression that lead-contaminated water is safe for children to drink.”
  • In 2016 The Hill reported on two scandals at the CDC. One involved the “cover up” of “the poor performance of a women’s health program called WISEWOMAN.” The allegations asserted that within the program, “definitions were changed and data ‘cooked’ to make the results look better than they were” and the CDC actively suppressed this information.
  • The other scandal involved ties between Coca-Cola and two ‘high-ranking’ CDC officials. The two scientists were accused of manipulating studies about the safety of sugar laden soft drinks. Two days after these connections were revealed one of the accused CDC scientists retired.

These scandals were brought to light by the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER.

As part of their statement these scientists remarked:

our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests…. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

Their complaints were filed anonymously “for fear of retribution.”

Another dodgy, yet textbook, example of the incestuous nature of Big Pharma’s Revolving Door was the case of former CDC commander Julie Gerberding. As director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009 Gerberding, “shepherded Merck’s highly controversial and highly profitable Gardasil vaccine through the regulatory maze.”

From there she moved on to a cozy and highly profitable position as Merck’s vaccine division president and curiously lucky enough to cash in her Merck stock holdings at opportune times.

Another in a series of collusion scandals hit the CDC in 2018 when director Brenda Fitzgerald was forced to resign as she was caught buying stock in cigarette and junk food companies, the very companies the CDC regulates.


Although the CDC does not regulate the pharmaceutical industry, the agency’s policies and recommendations have profound implications for drug makers. Nowhere is this more apparent than national vaccination policy- in particular the CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

Despite pushing the world’s most aggressive vaccination campaign the facts on the ground show a decidedly different reality than CDC advertisements would lead us to believe on the efficacy of this campaign.

With the expanded vaccine schedule no demonstrable positive returns in children’s health outcomes have accompanied the windfalls to the pharmaceutical industry. Chronic disease in American children has skyrocketed from 6% to 54% in the past 40 years and the United States holds the lamentable distinction of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.

Some point out that the CDC currently operates as chief vaccine sales and marketing agent for Big Pharma buying, selling and distributing vaccines even as the agency has direct conflicts of interest by holding multiple patents on vaccines and various aspects of vaccine technologies. Compounding this deceptive state of affairs, the CDC poses as a neutral scientific body that assesses vaccine safety while mandating increased vaccine doses to the American people.

While the CDC does not sell vaccines directly, it does receive royalties from companies who acquire licenses to their technologies.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) plays a major role in this scheme. The 12 member ACIP Committee has extraordinary influence on the health of virtually all US citizens as it is the body tasked with “adding to and/or altering the national vaccine schedule.”

The CDC and various members of this committee, in what can charitably be called ‘conflicts of interest’, currently own and have profited from an array of vaccine patents. These include vaccine patents for FluRotavirusHepatitis AAnthraxWest Nile virusSARSRift Valley Fever, and several other diseases of note.

Other patents held by the CDC encompass various applications of vaccine technologies including Nucleic acid vaccines for prevention of flavivirus infection, aerosol delivery systems for vaccines, adjuvants, various vaccination testing methods, vaccine quality control and numerous other vaccine accessories.


Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect. – Jonathan Swift

As the central organization commissioned with “protecting America from health, safety and security threats,” the CDC was presented its most significant assignment in its controversial history when the Covid Crisis of 2020 spread to the shores of the United States.

The CDC would shift into hyperdrive offering up all manner of advice, guidelines, regulations, decrees and laws impacting virtually every aspect of life across the country. Most of these decrees represented radical departures from past epidemiological principles.

During this existential ‘crisis’ the CDC would initiate an extraordinary campaign of rolling and shifting regulations. This onslaught of new “guidelines” included face coverings, social distancing, contact tracing, quarantines and isolation, Covid testing, travel regulations, school closures, business procedures– little of everyday life did not come under the influence and control of the CDC machinery.

No stone was left un-micromanaged— even the mundane task of washing hands was transformed into a 4 page baroque ritual, video included, via CDC guidelines. It seemed the only thing notably omitted from CDC “expert guidelines” during this teachable moment was nutrition and exercise.


This onslaught of edicts and definitions shifted on a weekly basis creating a climate of confusion and chaos. When questioned, the CDC would sternly proclaim “the science is settled.”

When politically expedient they reconfigured their protocols artfully asserting “the science evolved.”

Standard definitions became fungible when convenient.

While the most visible and contentious dissembling concerned the efficacy of masks – dozens of comparative studies clearly illustrated their ineffectiveness and harms – there were far more profound and disturbing manipulations emanating from the ever-shifting sands at CDC headquarters.

One of the more egregious examples of CDC duplicity occurred on March 24,2020 when the CDC changed well established protocols on ‘how cause of death’ would now be reported on death certificates, exclusively for COVID-19.

This seemingly benign modification became a watershed moment launching a process by which many deaths would be erroneously coded as U07.1 COVID-19. This led to massive COVID-19 death misattribution, was used to ramp up the fear and used as justification for the assemblage of draconian Covid policies.

Critics have called for a full audit of the CDC noting that, “These changes in data definition, collection, and analysis were made only for Covid” in violation of Federal guidelines. In a statement to Reutersthe CDC said:

it made adjustments to its COVID Data Tracker’s mortality data on March 14 because its algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.”

Two years after the problematic change in certification, the CDC would commence the process of removing tens of thousands from its “Covid death” toll.


As the Covid crisis unfolded, all of the long and winding roads ended up in the same place: experimental mRNA gene therapies which were sold as ‘vaccines’ and advertised as a panacea to extricate the world from this ‘crisis.’ The CDC, as trusted go-to government body and chief marketing representative, was tasked with leading the country to safer shores and peddling Pharma’s latest cash cow to the American public.

To sell these experimental injections the CDC relied on the ever handy marketing mantra of “safe and effective”. Consistent with past maneuverings, CDC communiques on the mRNA injections were chaotic when not outright duplicitous.

Certain problems cropped up almost immediately as it was discovered that this sales pitch was dependent on flawed study designs and data that was clearly massaged and manipulated.

The very same CDC that originally touted Covid injections as being able to “stop transmission” took an abrupt U-Turn admitting they couldn’t.

Once the “vaccine” rollout was in full swing the CDC, true to form, ignored all warning signs.

As early as January 2021 safety signals pointed towards potential dangers of these controversial injections. Adverse reactions were either downplayed or completely ignored. Risk-benefit analysis was also kept off the table even as the data painted a not-so-rosy portrayal of “safe and effective.”

The CDC’s reputation took another hit when it was reported that large swaths of Covid data had been hidden from public scrutiny and independent analysis. This added to the pile of pandemic policy scandals and further tarnished the CDC’s veneer as a reliable public health agency.


The story of CDC kleptocracy parallels the story of contemporary US government institutions. From its humble beginnings as an agency with a mission to manage the swamp, it has degenerated into a bloated bureaucracy that has become a full fledged member of the swamp.

That the CDC isn’t telling the truth to Americans on important matters of public health is in plain sight. It is no surprise that polls show public confidence in the CDC plummeting and, in the mind’s of many, the agency’s once honorable bubble has burst.

Accusations of CDC corruption no longer exist exclusively in the skeptical minds of government critics; they have become commonplace denunciations backed by mountains of easy-to-access evidence. No conspiracy is needed as a litany of scandals have come to characterize ‘business as usual’ at the CDC.

“Can we trust the CDC?”

To find the answer ask a different question.

“Who owns the CDC?”

Michael Bryant is a freelance journalist/activist and researcher who presently focuses primarily on issues surrounding health freedom. His work has appeared on

April 30, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

As jabbed athletes collapse, the authorities look the other way

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | April 21, 2022

THROUGHOUT 2021, attempts were made to debunk persistent reports that an unusual number of athletes were suffering cardiac events which might be related to mRNA Covid vaccination. The main theme of these fact-checking efforts was denial – athletes were not at risk and cardiac events were not happening.

In 2022 this dialogue is evolving because the numbers are growing and harder to ignore. According to an investigative report by OAN, a pro-Trump online US news site, 769 athletes suffered sudden health events between March 2021 and March 2022 with an average age of 23 years. In February, 15 top tennis players were unable to complete their matches in the Miami Open tournament.

Of necessity in the face of mounting numbers of injury reports, the fact-checking dialogue has hesitated on the brink, but on February 1 this year, the Washington Post still labelled stories of adverse effects of mRNA vaccines on athletes FALSE. Its story relied heavily on a discussion of the Danish footballer Christian Eriksen, who suffered a cardiac arrest on June 12 2021 just before half time in a match against Finland. The circulation of the apparently false story that Eriksen had been vaccinated was attributed by the Washington Post to a shady far-Right group in Austria seeking to influence their upcoming election.

Dig deeper and the story gets more murky. Few if any of the participants in this argument on both sides have verified hard facts to hand. The Washington Post, which had probably realised by February that it was quite possible that an unusual number of athletes were unexpectedly falling to the ground, decided to finish its article by asserting that the sporting collapses must be down to Covid, not Covid vaccination. Again no hard facts about actual athletes, just a polarised muck-throwing event.

As a scientist I realise that what is lacking here is reliable data. Why is it lacking? Here is the nub – the authorities are so sure they are right about the safety of vaccines that they are refusing to collect data. New Zealand has refused to institute mandatory reporting of adverse events following mRNA vaccination and other countries are in the same boat. We don’t have a lot of data to go on because it is not being collected. Sporting bodies are not counting either, or perhaps they have lost count or looked the other way.

Delving into the world of psychology, I find this unsettling. Why wouldn’t we collect data? Why aren’t we allowed to ask questions? Why isn’t the Ministry of Health counting and publishing up-to-date medical data on the frequency of cardiac and thrombotic events of all types?

There are stories in the popular press (actually not so popular these days) reporting recent excess cardiac events as due to ‘holiday heart syndrome’ or the need for young people ‘to avoid strenuous exercise’. Neither of these had been a thing until 2021. Why hasn’t the MoH quashed these speculative sallies into obfuscation by publishing data? You tell me.

The finger-pointing gets worse. One particular ‘whack-an-antivaxxer’ sport recently originated at Otago Medical School in New Zealand. A popular digest of a study of 1,000 people born in Dunedin in 1972 was reprinted in leading publications around the world. The article implied that anti-vaxxers suffered from sexual abuse, maltreatment, deprivation or neglect, or having an alcoholic parent as they were growing up. They were also described as low educational achievers likely to suffer from mental illness.

I am a little sceptical by nature, so I noticed that the reports were based on an article in a publication called The Conversation, which has received support during the pandemic from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Conversation describes itself as both devoted to academic rigour and seeking to explain science to the general public. Curiously its article about the Dunedin survey contained only one quantitative piece of information – 13 per cent of the respondents were vaccine resistant. No other quantitative information was provided to support the extreme characterisation of the vaccine hesitant in the article.

I tracked down the actual study entitled ‘Deep-seated psychological histories of COVID-19 vaccine hesitance and resistance’. Seven of the ten authors were based in the USA. One of the authors disclosed that he is funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The survey completed in April 2021 actually found that 13 per cent of the respondents were vaccine resistant and 12 per cent were vaccine hesitant. So fully 25 per cent of the respondents were vaccine hesitant to varying degrees.

I then rapidly came across an old friend used to distort information: absolute differences versus relative differences.

Of those willing to vaccinate (note the word used is willing, not necessarily keen), 62 per cent had at least one Adverse Childhood Event (ACE). Of those hesitant or resistant to vaccination 73 per cent had at least one ACE. The difference between 62 and 73 per cent is not large in absolute terms.

Based on this small difference, Professor Richie Poulton, a Dunedin-based co-author of the study, was quoted in the Otago Daily Times as saying about the vaccine hesitant and resistant responders:

‘The childhood experiences of those surveyed ranged from sexual abuse, parental neglect, poverty, to isolation and lack of achievement in school. They covered the whole suite of difficulties you can think of that might impinge on a person’s good development. Their personality became very stress reactive – they saw danger or threat where there essentially was none.’

Now you probably did percentages at school, so do you think Professor Poulton’s comments accurately reflect the difference between 62 per cent and 73 per cent exposures to at least one ACE? Because I certainly don’t. A significant percentage of both groups experienced ACEs growing up, but they had different opinions about vaccination.

Wouldn’t it be more productive to ask: why do we have such a high rate of ACEs in New Zealand? Is our mental health service under-funded? Is our education system failing us? Is support for families sufficient?

I went further down the pages examining results of a battery of ‘questionnaires’. I found that although there were measurable differences between the two groups: ‘vaccine willing’ and ‘vaccine hesitant and resistant’, their average scores were well within the standard deviation of the mean standardised score for each test.

This means most of those responding to the survey were relatively average people. The vaccine hesitant and resistant were being falsely characterised as ill-educated social deviants. This sounds like victim blaming. So much for the academic rigour and capacity to explain science to which The Conversation proudly aspires.

Were the media comments about the study an unsupported and false attempt to discredit the unvaccinated and categorise them as outcasts and misfits without the necessary intelligence to think for themselves? The small differences between the two groups were insufficient to justify this black-and-white condemnation widely shared around the world’s media.

There were some differences in educational attainment. Some 35 per cent of the vaccine willing had a BA degree or higher, while 15 per cent of the vaccine hesitant or resistant had a BA or higher. However the Dunedin results may be misleading regarding the influence of education. A study in the USA found that people with a PhD were more likely to be vaccine hesitant, implying that a decision not to vaccinate may possibly be encouraged by the development of high level critical thinking.

In the mainstream media articles, Professor Poulton pleaded with us to feel pity for the unvaccinated, because of their supposed difficult childhood (which was in fact not so different from that of the vaccinated). Was he simply lowering our opinion of the unvaccinated by playing upon stereotypes? Subtly hammering home the current mainstream media messaging that only Right-wing extremists and selfish antisocials remain unvaccinated.

Did he realise that the unvaccinated are legitimately concerned about the vaccinated because they have been unwittingly exposed to serious but as yet unquantified medical risk?

As I am aware that Covid mRNA vaccine adverse events are running at 30-50 times higher than any previous vaccine, I would ask different questions of the data:

  • Were those willing to be vaccinated being misled by the inadequate content of their education?
  • Do prior adverse experiences provide good reason to be more cautious in future?

The Immunisation Advisory Centre at the respected University of Auckland (incidentally partly funded by pro-vaccine interests) reassuringly says:

‘Confirmed cases of myocarditis are rare. More than 80 per cent of reported cases of myocarditis following mRNA Covid vaccination have recovered quickly with rest and commonly used oral anti-inflammatory medications such as ibuprofen.’

Are you reassured by this, or have you looked at the Medsafe adverse event data where 18,000 mRNA vaccine recipients reported chest pain and shortness of breath – symptoms admitted by the Immunisation Advisory Centre to be indicative of myocarditis?

Have you concluded, like me, that as many as 80 per cent of cases of myocarditis among the vaccinated remain unreported and untreated? A ticking time bomb, of which professional athletes represent only the tip of the iceberg.

The question is, how long are our health authorities going to continue to look the other way and refuse to start counting accurately, appropriately, and retrospectively?

April 21, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 1 Comment

Bill Gates-Funded Biotech Firm Claims GMO Mosquito Project a ‘Success,’ But Critics Cite Lack of Proof

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 20, 2022

Oxitec this week announced results of the first open-air study of genetically engineered mosquitoes in the U.S.

The U.K.-based firm described the results as “positive,” but said, “Larger tests are still needed to determine whether the insects can achieve the ultimate goal of suppressing a wild population of potentially virus-carrying mosquitoes.”

The company’s self-reported results are not yet independently confirmed or peer-reviewed.

Oxitec, the recipient of a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) for “self-limited mosquito field trials,” in April 2021 launched its pilot project in the Florida Keys.

The company completed the first stage of the study with the release over seven months of nearly 5 million engineered Aedes aegypti mosquitoes.

The pilot study was conducted under an experimental use permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It was the first to be approved in the U.S., though the company has since received a permit to conduct a similar experiment in California.

Reporting this week on Oxitec’s announcement about its Florida results, Nature stated:

“Wild A. aegypti mosquitoes can carry viruses such as chikungunyadengue, Zika and yellow fever, so scientists have sought ways to reduce their populations. Oxitec’s engineered males carry a gene that is lethal to female offspring.

“If all goes to plan, when released into the environment, the engineered males should mate with wild females, and their female offspring will die before they can reproduce. Male offspring will carry the gene and pass it on to half of their progeny. As each generation mates, more females die, and the A. aegypti population should dwindle.”

Oxitec’s pilot project in the Florida Keys involves releasing up to 1 billion OX5034 mosquitoes — the first genetically modified (GM) mosquito approved for release in the U.S — in Monroe County over a two-year period.

Oxitec said the mosquitoes have a “self-limiting” gene that makes the females dependent on the antibiotic tetracycline. Without the drug, they will die.

Mosquitoes require water to mature from an egg to an adult. By adding water to the boxes the mosquitoes are deployed in, both GM males and GM females will hatch.

However, with no tetracycline present in the box, the GM females are expected to die in early larval stages.

The male mosquitoes will survive and carry the gene. When they leave the boxes, according to Oxitec, the insects will fly away to mate with wild females to pass the gene to the next wild generation.

In an April 6 webinar about the Florida pilot study, Oxitec claimed the first stage of the experiment was a success.

Oxitec’s researchers collected more than 22,000 eggs from traps set as part of the pilot study, Nature reported. They found the males that hatched from the eggs typically traveled within a one-hectare area around the release box.

This represents the same range over which wild A. aegypti mosquitoes fly.

Oxitec reported all females that inherited the lethal gene died before reaching adulthood, and said researchers could determine this because mosquitoes carrying the lethal gene fluoresce under certain light.

According to Nature, however, reducing A. aegypti populations won’t reduce the need for anti-mosquito pesticides, at least in the Florida Keys, as this specific mosquito type represents only 4% of the local population.

Other mosquito types, such as the black salt marsh mosquito (Aeges taeniorhynchus), described as “more of a nuisance than a disease vector,” have much larger populations in the region.

Nature also cited other limitations of Oxitec’s study results:

“[L]arger tests are still needed to determine whether the insects can achieve the ultimate goal of suppressing a wild population of potentially virus-carrying mosquitoes

“The pilot study was not intended to determine how well the method suppresses the wild population.”

Oxitec said it plans to gather this additional data in an extension of the Florida Keys study, which requires approval from state regulators.

Thomas Scott, an entomologist at the University of California, Davis, expressed reservations about any results Oxitec’s expanded studies would provide.

Scott told Nature, “[t]here’s not enough Aedes-transmitted viral infection in the Florida Keys,” or anywhere in the continental United States, to conduct a study that would determine whether Oxitec’s GM mosquitoes actually reduce the transmission of viruses.

This would require an “enormously expensive” clinical trial, he said.

Scott said disease outbreaks can occur even when A. aegypti populations are low. It’s “just not that simple.” he said.

GM mosquito project in Brazil failed: Yale study

Although Oxitec’s CEO claimed “strong public support” from Florida Keys communities, the company’s first U.S. pilot project sparked protests and pushback from local residents.

Critics warned the promised benefits and potential negative consequences of the project — representing the largest-ever release of GM insects in the world — had not been sufficiently studied.

Oxitec in 2016 released billions of lab-grown mosquitoes in Brazil with the intent to combat the spread of Zika and other viruses.

However, according to an independent peer-reviewed study from Yale University, the continual releases of the GM mosquitoes over a two-year period failed to reduce populations of A. aegypti mosquitoes.

The Yale study also found the GM mosquitoes bred with local Aedes aegypti, resulting in the circulation of hybrid mosquitoes in the wild that could be more aggressive, more difficult to eradicate and that could increase the spread of mosquito-borne disease.

The mosquitoes released in 2016 in Brazil and other locations, including the Cayman Islands, were Oxitec’s OX513A version. The company released a different version, OX5034, in Florida.

The Yale study examining the release of OX513A in Brazil confirms some of the GM mosquitoes’ offspring — which were supposed to die and not pass new genes to the wild — survived to adulthood and reproduced with their native counterparts.

According to the study, 10% to 60% of the native mosquitoes contained genes from Oxitec.

The study’s authors concluded they did not know what impact these mixed mosquitoes have on disease control or transmission but said their findings underscore the importance of monitoring the genetics of the insects.

“The claim was that genes from the release strain would not get into the general population because offspring would die,” Jeffrey Powell, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Yale University and senior author of the study, said in a statement. “That obviously was not what happened.”

Powell added there is no known health risk to humans from these hybrids. However, “it is the unanticipated outcome that is concerning,” said Powell.

Oxitec publicly disagreed with the findings and responded on the journal’s website, telling Gizmodo that Yale’s study included “numerous false, speculative and unsubstantiated claims and statements about Oxitec’s mosquito technology.”

Oxitec’s reassurances did not assuage the fears of environmentalists and Florida residents who expressed concerns prior to the start of the Florida pilot study.

Environmental organization Friends of the Earth described the Florida Keys pilot study as a “live experiment,” noting concerns arising from the Yale study that the GM mosquitoes could reproduce with their wild counterparts.

Billions of GM mosquitoes set to be released in California

Oxitec in August 2021 received an experimental use permit from the EPA to release mosquitoes at a second study site spanning several California counties, and is constructing a research and development facility in California.

Grassroots groups concerned about the proposed California project said there are zero local cases of diseases transmitted by A. aegypti in California — and very few nationally — and no studies on the ability of GM mosquitoes to reduce the transmission of disease.

The groups also accused Oxitec of “corrupt, backdoor political lobbying” to receive EPA approvals, claiming the company “has repeatedly lied to the public [and] refused to produce information requested by the public and independent experts,” has a “concerning history of misrepresentation or failure,” and made “purposeful efforts to cover up those issues and attack … researchers who publish unfavorable findings.”

The groups also claimed a solution to mosquito-borne viruses already exists: the Wolbachia-infected mosquito, “a non-GMO biopesticide mosquito,” which has “a proven record of success.”

Other environmentalists described Oxitec’s pilot studies as a means for the firm to maximize profits, instead of an effort to eradicate mosquito-borne disease.

Oxitec conducted GM mosquito trials in some regions of India, where GM mosquitoes were released in an attempt to control dengue and the chikungunya virus.

Subramanian Swamy, a member of the Indian parliament with the country’s ruling right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, in 2018 accused Bill Gates of “making Indians into guinea pigs,” citing the after-effects of the release of GM mosquitoes in Brazil.

The BMGF reportedly is heavily involved in the Indian trials.The involvement of the BMGF in the realm of mosquito-borne illnesses has gone as far as to propose, in 2017, alongside the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, the development of a mosquito emoji, to be “used for public health campaigns.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

April 21, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Why Is Russia Still Collaborating With Countries That Are Actively Working to Destroy It?

By Edward Slavsquat | Anti-Empire | April 20, 2022

Close your eyes and imagine you’re Russia.

You’re scrambling to create an alternative financial system in order to bypass 100 gazillion sanctions.

At the same time, you’re formulating “global health” policies with the same countries that are actively trying to destroy your economy.

Something doesn’t quite add up here.

Imagine being Russia and implementing “health recommendations” from an organization funded by Germany, Bill Gates, the UK and the USA. And yet…

There is endless excitement about Russia’s imminent “economic sovereignty,” but what about Russia’s medical sovereignty? Does it matter if Russia adopts the golden petro-yuan (or whatever) if it continues to copy-paste “health measures” drafted by an organization that gets most of its funding from NATO states and Bill Gates?

It’s a serious question, especially because the WHO is forging ahead with its so-called “global pandemic treaty.” Slated for completion in 2024, the agreement will give the World Health Organization unprecedented powers to combat new outbreaks of positive PCR tests.

Does Russia really need this? After two years of the WHO’s non-stop virus scamming, maybe it’s time to pull the plug?

Thankfully, a grassroots campaign (aided by lawmakers) seeks Russia’s immediate withdrawal from the WHO. This is an excellent idea—but is it possible?

Russia’s unrepentant WHO-love

It’s fun to fantasize about loading Dr. Tedros into a Novichok cannon and launching him into outer space, but it’s not so simple. The World Health Organization has friends in high places. Some prominent WHO-lovers in the Russian government include:

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council: This guy is completely smitten with global “health” tyranny. In November, Medvedev whined about how the WHO lacked “the leverage to force states to pursue a single, coordinated policy at all levels” during a declared worldwide health emergency. Thankfully he offered a solution to this terrible conundrum:

It is necessary to think about giving WHO the authority to make significant mobilization decisions in the interests of the entire world community in an emergency situation (for example, during a pandemic). It is likely that in order for the WHO to obtain such authority, it will be necessary for the UN members to adopt an international convention on cooperation in this area.

There you have it: Medvedev has fully endorsed the idea of a pandemic treaty and wants Russia to submit to the WHO whenever there are too many positive PCR tests or other existential threats to public health. (It’s charming how over the last two months, Medvedev has endeavored to rebrand himself as a mighty crusader against the depraved West. Yes, he’s a true patriot.)

Mikhail Murashko, Health Minister: Okay, maybe Medvedev is an insufferable WHO groupie, but so what? He’s not in charge of health policy. That’s Murashko’s job:


Russia has agreed to participate in the creation of a pandemic treaty, but with the stipulation that any new agreement should not “duplicate” previous accords.

What does this mean, exactly? It’s open to interpretation and gives Russia room to maneuver. [It sounds to me like it means the new agreement should go beyond existing agreements.] That being said, Murashko can hardly be described as hostile to the WHO; on the contrary, he’s worked tirelessly to make Russia WHO-friendly. Unsurprisingly, Murashko is also an unapologetic advocate for digital cattle tags.

Tatyana Golikova, Deputy Prime Minister: Russia’s former health minister (2007-2012) is True Believer who has been heaping praise on the WHO for more than a decade. Over the past two years she’s been instrumental in ensuring Russia’s adoption of WHO-endorsed anti-health measures.

But there’s also been some finger-wagging. In May 2021, Golikova told the WHO it needed to “speed up” its procedure for approving new vaccines. Because public health.

Sergey Sobyanin, Mayor of Moscow: In September 2020, Sobyanin thanked the WHO for inspiring him to impose a lockdown on Russia’s capital.

“I would like to express my gratitude to the World Health Organization, which from the first days of the pandemic has always informed the world community, both Russia and Moscow, about the processes that are taking place in different countries that were the first to be infected with COVID-19,” the mayor told Hans Kluge, the director of the WHO’s European Bureau.

Nine months later, Sobyanin became a trailblazer for compulsory vaccination and QR codes in Russia.

Cool WHO flag, bro.

Anna Popova, head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor): As Russia’s chief sanitary doctor, Popova has taken on the role of National COVID Nanny. Her penchant for arbitrary and useless “epidemiological” measures can be attributed in part to her devotion to the WHO.

In October, Popova supervised a WHO exercise held in Kazan that simulated the outbreak of an infectious disease.

Popova oversaw WHO-sponsored Virus Games in Kazan (source)

The Rospotrebnadzor chief said the simulation would be used to develop international standards for rapid response to “epidemiological threats” around the world.

Ungrateful Kazan residents protested against the WHO-sponsored Virus Games, apparently because they felt they were being used as guinea pigs (ridiculous!).

Russia’s upper management is basically completely A-Okay with the WHO. So, uh, who doesn’t like the WHO? We’re glad you asked…

The fellowship of anti-WHO Duma deputies

Russia’s parliamentarians are starting to ask: “Hey, why are we part of an organization that is almost entirely funded by hostile NATO members/Bill Gates?” Good question.

Pyotr Tolstoy, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma: Tolstoy has called for Russia to withdraw from the WHO as well as the World Trade Organization and UNESCO. According to the senior lawmaker, it was idiotic of Russia to join these esteemed US-dominated global bodies in the first place.

Yana Lantratova, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Education: Lantratova believes Russia should suspend its cooperation with the WHO due to the organization’s links to biological laboratories in Ukraine.

“All of you know about the work of WHO around the world, it seems to me that interaction with this international organization in the current geopolitical situation does not meet the national interests of the Russian Federation,” she said last week. “Russia should suspend its membership in the WHO until the end of the parliamentary investigation. This will not affect on the health care system in Russia, but the fact that the organization has been collaborating for several years with biological laboratories created in Ukraine by American specialists cannot be ignored.”

Sergey Leonov, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Health Protection: Although he opposes leaving the WHO, Leonov thinks Russia should stop paying membership fees.

“It is not entirely clear what benefit this organization brings to us,” the deputy said on March 30.

Sergei Mironov, parliamentary leader of A Just Russia — For Truth: Mironov and other members of his party recently introduced a draft resolution to the State Duma calling for Russia to suspend its membership with the WHO.

The proposed legislation would halt cooperation with the organization pending the results of a parliamentary investigation into the WHO’s dealings in Ukraine.

While lawmakers are focusing their rage on Ukraine-related WHO shenanigans, Russian activists have taken a more “big picture” stance: The World Health Organizations is actively destroying our health, and that’s bad.

“A direct threat to our national sovereignty”

What’s going on outside of the Duma chambers? Quite a bit.

A group of prominent Russian activists held a roundtable on April 14 to discuss how to safeguard Russia’s medical sovereignty. According to an excellent report from, numerous participants called on Russia to withdraw from the WHO.

Anti-clot-shot crusader and conservative firebrand Alexandra Mashkova-Blagikh (whom your humble Moscow correspondent had the honor of meeting at the Doctors For Truth conference in December) gave a particularly rousing speech at last week’s event:

The WHO has been turned into an instrument of geopolitics. Whom it serves is clear if you look at its main sponsors: the USA, the Bill Gates Foundation, Germany, Britain… In the conditions of the war being waged against Russia, we cannot afford such a partnership. We are dealing with cultural, value, demographic and biological terrorism.

Now, under the pretext of the need to fight a “pandemic”, the WHO seeks to expand its power around the world through the Pandemic Agreement. This is a direct threat to our national sovereignty. It is obvious that this structure will never act in the interests of our country, and the time has come to withdraw from this organization. It is encouraging that serious politicians have started talking about this.

A coalition of activist groups has also issued an open letter calling for the removal of WHO-loving government officials (including many of the unsavory specimens we listed above).

What happens now?

A lot can happen in two years. What will the world look like in May 2024, when the pandemic treaty is scheduled for completion and ratification?

Probably we will all be eating bug-tacos in socially distanced quarantine camps as Triple-Ebola Swine Pox (a positive PCR test) ravishes the Earth.

If Russia wants to avoid this unpleasant future, it should probably not volunteer to be a “co-author” of any WHO-related treaty. Just to be on the safe side, Russia should exit this regrettable organization immediately. Today. Preferably right now.

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | 1 Comment

Putting Big Pharma on Trial in the COVID-19 Era, Part 3

Backing the Big Four: Big Pharma and the FDA, WHO, NIH, CDC

By Rebecca Strong | February 16, 2022

Part 1, Part 2

I know what you’re thinking. Big pharma is amoral and the FDA’s devastating slips are a dime a dozen — old news. But what about agencies and organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)? Don’t they have an obligation to provide unbiased guidance to protect citizens? Don’t worry, I’m getting there.

The WHO’s guidance is undeniably influential across the globe. For most of this organization’s history, dating back to 1948, it could not receive donations from pharmaceutical companies — only member states. But that changed in 2005 when the WHO updated its financial policy to permit private money into its system. Since then, the WHO has accepted many financial contributions from big pharma. In fact, it’s only 20% financed by member states today, with a whopping 80% of financing coming from private donors. For instance, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is now one of its main contributors, providing up to 13% of its funds — about $250–300 million a year. Nowadays, the BMGF provides more donations to the WHO than the entire United States.

Dr. Arata Kochi, former head of WHO’s malaria program, expressed concerns to director-general Dr. Margaret Chan in 2007 that taking the BMGF’s money could have “far-reaching, largely unintended consequences” including “stifling a diversity of views among scientists.”

“The big concerns are that the Gates Foundation isn’t fully transparent and accountable,” Lawrence Gostin, director of WHO’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, told Devex in an interview. “By wielding such influence, it could steer WHO priorities … It would enable a single rich philanthropist to set the global health agenda.”

Bill Gates, Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci. Photo credit: National Institutes of Health

Take a peek at the WHO’s list of donors and you’ll find a few other familiar names like AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck.

The NIH has the same problem, it seems. Science journalist Paul Thacker, who previously examined financial links between physicians and pharma companies as a lead investigator of the United States Senate Committee, wrote in The Washington Post that this agency “often ignored” very “obvious” conflicts of interest. He also claimed that “its industry ties go back decades.” In 2018, it was discovered that a $100 million alcohol consumption study run by NIH scientists was funded mostly by beer and liquor companies. Emails proved that NIH researchers were in frequent contact with those companies while designing the study — which, here’s a shocker — were aimed at highlighting the benefits and not the risks of moderate drinking. So, the NIH ultimately had to squash the trial.

And then there’s the CDC. It used to be that this agency couldn’t take contributions from pharmaceutical companies, but in 1992 they found a loophole: new legislation passed by Congress allowed them to accept private funding through a nonprofit called the CDC Foundation. From 2014 through 2018 alone, the CDC Foundation received $79.6 million from corporations like Pfizer, Biogen, and Merck.

Of course, if a pharmaceutical company wants to get a drug, vaccine, or other product approved, they really need to cozy up to the FDA. That explains why in 2017, pharma companies paid for a whopping 75% of the FDA’s scientific review budgets, up from 27% in 1993. It wasn’t always like this. But in 1992, an act of Congress changed the FDA’s funding stream, enlisting pharma companies to pay “user fees,” which help the FDA speed up the approval process for their drugs.

A 2018 Science investigation found that 40 out of 107 physician advisors on the FDA’s committees received more than $10,000 from big pharma companies trying to get their drugs approved, with some banking up to $1 million or more. The FDA claims it has a well-functioning system to identify and prevent these possible conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, their system only works for spotting payments before advisory panels meet, and the Science investigation showed many FDA panel members get their payments after the fact. It’s a little like “you scratch my back now, and I’ll scratch your back once I get what I want” — drug companies promise FDA employees a future bonus contingent on whether things go their way.

Here’s why this dynamic proves problematic: a 2000 investigation revealed that when the FDA approved the rotavirus vaccine in 1998, it didn’t exactly do its due diligence. That probably had something to do with the fact that committee members had financial ties to the manufacturer, Merck — many owned tens of thousands of dollars of stock in the company, or even held patents on the vaccine itself. Later, the Adverse Event Reporting System revealed that the vaccine was causing serious bowel obstructions in some children, and it was finally pulled from the U.S. market in October 1999.

Then, in June of 2021, the FDA overruled concerns raised by its very own scientific advisory committee to approve Biogen’s Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm — a move widely criticized by physicians. The drug not only showed very little efficacy but also potentially serious side effects like brain bleeding and swelling, in clinical trials. Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a Harvard Medical School professor who was on the FDA’s scientific advisory committee, called it the “worst drug approval” in recent history, and noted that meetings between the FDA and Biogen had a “strange dynamic” suggesting an unusually close relationship. Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told CNN that he believes the FDA started working in “inappropriately close collaboration with Biogen” back in 2019. “They were not objective, unbiased regulators,” he added in the CNN interview. “It seems as if the decision was preordained.”

That brings me to perhaps the biggest conflict of interest yet: Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID is just one of many institutes that comprises the NIH — and the NIH owns half the patent for the Moderna vaccine — as well as thousands more pharma patents to boot. The NIAID is poised to earn millions of dollars from Moderna’s vaccine revenue, with individual officials also receiving up to $150,000 annually.

Operation Warp Speed

In December of 2020, Pfizer became the first company to receive an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA for a COVID-19 vaccine. EUAs — which allow the distribution of an unapproved drug or other product during a declared public health emergency — are actually a pretty new thing: the first one was issued in 2005 so military personnel could get an anthrax vaccine. To get a full FDA approval, there needs to be substantial evidence that the product is safe and effective. But for an EUA, the FDA just needs to determine that it may be effective. Since EUAs are granted so quickly, the FDA doesn’t have enough time to gather all the information they’d usually need to approve a drug or vaccine.

Pfizer CEO and chairman Albert Bourla has said his company was “operating at the speed of science” to bring a vaccine to market. However, a 2021 report in The BMJ revealed that this speed might have come at the expense of “data integrity and patient safety.” Brook Jackson, regional director for the Ventavia Research Group, which carried out these trials, told The BMJ that her former company “falsified data, unblinded patients, and employed inadequately trained vaccinators” in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial. Just some of the other concerning events witnessed included: adverse events not being reported correctly or at all, lack of reporting on protocol deviations, informed consent errors, and mislabeling of lab specimens. An audio recording of Ventavia employees from September 2020 revealed that they were so overwhelmed by issues arising during the study that they became unable to “quantify the types and number of errors” when assessing quality control. One Ventavia employee told The BMJ she’d never once seen a research environment as disorderly as Ventavia’s Pfizer vaccine trial, while another called it a “crazy mess.”

Over the course of her two-decades-long career, Jackson has worked on hundreds of clinical trials, and two of her areas of expertise happen to be immunology and infectious diseases. She told me that from her first day on the Pfizer trial in September of 2020, she discovered “such egregious misconduct” that she recommended they stop enrolling participants into the study to do an internal audit.

“To my complete shock and horror, Ventavia agreed to pause enrollment but then devised a plan to conceal what I found and to keep ICON and Pfizer in the dark,” Jackson said during our interview. “The site was in full clean-up mode. When missing data points were discovered the information was fabricated, including forged signatures on the informed consent forms.”

A screenshot Jackson shared with me shows she was invited to a meeting titled “COVID 1001 Clean up Call” on Sept. 21, 2020. She refused to participate in the call.

Jackson repeatedly warned her superiors about patient safety concerns and data integrity issues.

“I knew that the entire world was counting on clinical researchers to develop a safe and effective vaccine and I did not want to be a part of that failure by not reporting what I saw,” she told me.

When her employer failed to act, Jackson filed a complaint with the FDA on Sept. 25, and Ventavia fired her hours later that same day under the pretense that she was “not a good fit.” After reviewing her concerns over the phone, she claims the FDA never followed up or inspected the Ventavia site. Ten weeks later, the FDA authorized the EUA for the vaccine. Meanwhile, Pfizer hired Ventavia to handle the research for four more vaccine clinical trials, including one involving children and young adults, one for pregnant women, and another for the booster. Not only that, but Ventavia handled the clinical trials for Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Jackson is currently pursuing a False Claims Act lawsuitagainst Pfizer and Ventavia Research Group.

Last year, Pfizer banked nearly $37 billion from its COVID vaccine, making it one of the most lucrative products in global history. Its overall revenues doubled in 2021 to reach $81.3 billion, and it’s slated to reach a record-breaking $98-$102 billion this year.

“Corporations like Pfizer should never have been put in charge of a global vaccination rollout, because it was inevitable they would make life-and-death decisions based on what’s in the short-term interest of their shareholders,” writes Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now.

As previously mentioned, it’s super common for pharmaceutical companies to fund the research on their own products. Here’s why that’s scary. One 1999 meta-analysis showed that industry-funded research is eight times less likely to achieve unfavorable results compared to independent trials. In other words, if a pharmaceutical company wants to prove that a medication, supplement, vaccine, or device is safe and effective, they’ll find a way.

With that in mind, I recently examined the 2020 study on Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to see if there were any conflicts of interest. Lo and behold, the lengthy attached disclosure form shows that of the 29 authors, 18 are employees of Pfizer and hold stock in the company, one received a research grant from Pfizer during the study, and two reported being paid “personal fees” by Pfizer. In another 2021 study on the Pfizer vaccine, seven of the 15 authors are employees of and hold stock in Pfizer. The other eight authors received financial support from Pfizer during the study.

As of the day I’m writing this, about 64% of Americans are fully vaccinated, and 76% have gotten at least one dose. The FDA has repeatedly promised “full transparency” when it comes to these vaccines. Yet in December of 2021, the FDA asked for permission to wait 75 years before releasing information pertaining to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including safety data, effectiveness data, and adverse reaction reports. That means no one would see this information until the year 2096 — conveniently, after many of us have departed this crazy world. To recap: the FDA only needed 10 weeks to review the 329,000 pages worth of data before approving the EUA for the vaccine — but apparently, they need three-quarters of a century to publicize it.

In response to the FDA’s ludicrous request, PHMPT — a group of over 200 medical and public health experts from Harvard, Yale, Brown, UCLA, and other institutions — filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act demanding that the FDA produce this data sooner. And their efforts paid off: U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman issued an order for the FDA to produce 12,000 pages by Jan. 31, and then at least 55,000 pages per month thereafter. In his statement to the FDA, Pittman quoted the late John F. Kennedy: “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

As for why the FDA wanted to keep this data hidden, the first batch of documentation revealed that there were more than 1,200 vaccine-related deaths in just the first 90 days after the Pfizer vaccine was introduced. Of 32 pregnancies with a known outcome, 28 resulted in fetal death. The CDC also recently unveiled data showing a total of 1,088,560 reports of adverse events from COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2022. That data included 23,149 reports of deaths and 183,311 reports of serious injuries. There were 4,993 reported adverse events in pregnant women after getting vaccinated, including 1,597 reports of miscarriage or premature birth. A 2022 study published in JAMA, meanwhile, revealed that there have been more than 1,900 reported cases of myocarditis — or inflammation of the heart muscle — mostly in people 30 and under, within 7 days of getting the vaccine. In those cases, 96% of people were hospitalized.

“It is understandable that the FDA does not want independent scientists to review the documents it relied upon to license Pfizer’s vaccine given that it is not as effective as the FDA originally claimed, does not prevent transmission, does not prevent against certain emerging variants, can cause serious heart inflammation in younger individuals, and has numerous other undisputed safety issues,” writes Aaron Siri, the attorney representing PHMPT in its lawsuit against the FDA.

Siri told me in an email that his office phone has been ringing off the hook in recent months.

“We are overwhelmed by inquiries from individuals calling about an injury from a COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

By the way — it’s worth noting that adverse effects caused by COVID-19 vaccinations are still not covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which grants them total immunity from liability with their vaccines. And no matter what happens to you, you can’t sue the FDA for authorizing the EUA, or your employer for requiring you to get it, either. Billions of taxpayer dollars went to fund the research and development of these vaccines, and in Moderna’s case, licensing its vaccine was made possible entirely by public funds. But apparently, that still warrants citizens no insurance. Should something go wrong, you’re basically on your own.

To be continued…

April 10, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Pandemic Treaty Is a Spreading Plague

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | March 30, 2022

The globalist cabal wants to monopolize health systems worldwide, and a stealth attack is already underway in the form of an international pandemic treaty.1 The negotiations for this treaty began March 3, 2022.2 As reported by The Pulse (video above):

“Coming off the back of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization is proposing a new pandemic treaty they’re hoping will be accepted by enough member countries to become a reality by 2024.”

According to Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “me-first” approaches “stymie the global solidarity needed” to address global threats. His solution? Give the WHO all the power.

Over the past two years, in the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists have justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment. Now, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation.

Treaty Threatens National Sovereignty

As noted by The Pulse, “there are a number of things in the treaty that the people of the world need to consider before going down this path.” In the featured video, The Pulse’s Joe Martino interviews Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, a member of the steering committee of the World Council for Health, who points out that the treaty gives the WHO:

“… an inordinate amount of power to make decisions in sovereign countries as to how people live and how they deal with pandemics, from lockdowns to mandates over treatment.”

In short, it would create a one-size-fits-all approach to disease, without regard for all the varying situations found in individual countries, and this is something we already know doesn’t work. The treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens, and would erode democracy everywhere.

At the same time, it would cost each member country millions of dollars to participate in this process. As explained by Mohamed, the treaty will need to go through a voting process at the World Health Assembly in 2023. They need a majority for it to pass and, if passed, all member countries will be bound by it.

The Treaty Is ‘Invalid and Unlawful’

Another concern raised by Mohamed is that many countries don’t even know about this treaty as of yet, and it’s possible that the WHO might try to push for earlier implementation than 2024 — all without public participation or input. “It is undemocratic, it is unconstitutional and therefore it makes the treaty invalid and unlawful,” she says.

She also highlights the WHO’s history of corruption and many health policy failures, which are “intrinsically linked to conflicts of interest.” In an open letter on the WHO’s pandemic treaty, the World Council for Health writes, in part:3

“The proposed WHO agreement is unnecessary, and is a threat to sovereignty and inalienable rights. It increases the WHO’s suffocating power to declare unjustified pandemics, impose dehumanizing lockdowns, and enforce expensive, unsafe, and ineffective treatments against the will of the people.

The WCH [World Council for Health] believes that the people have a right to participate in any agreement that affects their lives, livelihoods, and well-being.

However, the WHO has not engaged in a process of public participation, which is evidence that its priority is capturing more power for itself and its corporate accomplices, than serving the interests of the people. Without an unbiased democratic process, any agreement by the WHO, acting via the United Nations, will be unlawful, illegitimate, and invalid.

Historically, the WHO leadership has failed the people. Among many examples, it approved the injurious H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine for a controversially declared pandemic.

Equally, the WHO failed during the COVID-19 chapter as it encouraged lockdowns, suppressed early preventive treatments, and recommended product interventions that have proven to be neither safe nor effective.

The WHO cannot be allowed to control the world’s health agenda, nor enforce biosurveillance. While it receives funding from public sources belonging to the people, it is caught in a perpetual conflict of interest because it also receives substantial funding from private interests that use their contributions to influence and profit from WHO decisions and mandates.

For example, the Gates Foundation and the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine promotion alliance, contribute over $1 billion a year.”

Another concern is the fact that when people are harmed by the WHO’s health policies, there’s no accountability because the WHO has diplomatic immunity. According to Mohamed, “the WHO should not be making ANY decisions about world health in the future.”

The Ultimate Power Grab

As noted by Martino, while the treaty claims to be focused on pandemic planning and responses, there’s serious concern that it could be expanded to cover other areas of health as well. Mohamed agrees, saying that it could potentially be expanded, using the WHO’s constitution as the basis for that expansion. Article 2 of the WHO’s constitution states:

“In order to achieve its objective, the functions of the Organization shall be: a) to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work … k) to propose conventions, agreements and regulations, and make recommendations with respect to international health matters …

s) to establish and revise as necessary international nomenclatures of diseases, of causes of death and of public health practices … v) generally to take all necessary action to attain the objective of the Organization.”

Its power is already very significant, and the goal to turn the WHO into a global health dictatorship is virtually written into its constitution. Also, remember that the WHO removed the specificity of mass casualties from the definition of a pandemic, so now a pandemic can be just about any disease that occurs in multiple countries. Even obesity could theoretically qualify. So, the WHO could claim power over health care systems in any number of ways, given the chance.

Treaty Would Grant WHO Power to Mandate Vaccine Passports

While most of the world is more than ready to move on, the WHO seems unwilling to let go. A WHO official recently told the Ottawa Citizen that the COVID pandemic is still “far from over.”4

The reason for this reluctance to declare the pandemic over is likely because the WHO hopes to gain the power to mandate vaccine passports and COVID jabs worldwide. It’s already working on the creation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity program. As reported by WEBLYF:5

“Under the guise of a ‘trust network,’ another initiative called Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) is also gaining momentum.

Partnering with big tech companies, big corporations, and big universities, VCI describes itself as ‘a voluntary coalition of public and private organizations committed to empowering individuals with access to verifiable clinical information including a trustworthy and verifiable copy of their vaccination records in digital or paper form using open, interoperable standards.’

VCI’s SMART Health Cards, as reported by Off-Guardian, are already implemented by ‘25 states in America, plus Puerto Rico and DC, and have become the US’s de-facto national passport.’ As explained in the article:

‘The US government, unlike many European countries, has not issued their own official vaccine passport, knowing such a move would rankle with the more Libertarian-leaning US public, not to mention get tangled in the question of state vs federal law.

The SMART cards allow them to sidestep this issue. They are technically only implemented by each state individually via agreements with VCI, which is technically a private entity. However, since the SMART cards are indirectly funded by the US government, their implementation across every state makes them a national standard in all but name.’”

United Tribes of New Zealand Denounce the WHO Treaty

As noted by NZDSOS,6 “Is this the way we want to live our lives? Constantly at the behest of shadowy individuals and corporations who monitor our every move and determine what we can and can’t do, down to buying food?”

In a formal letter of notification to the WHO and the Executive Board of the World Health Assembly, the government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni in New Zealand strongly denounced this and any other treaty that challenges national sovereignty:7

“… you are thereby formally notified that the Wakaminenga Māorigovernment of Aotearoa Nu Tireni/New Zealand does not consent in any shape of form to any type of international pandemic treaty under the WHO or its assembly. Any such construct shall be void ab initio.

We, as United Tribes and Hereditary Chiefs, represent the only current legitimate government in New Zealand. The current NZ government represented by Jacinda Ardern is an illegitimate government because it is a corporation (SEC CIK #0000216105) listed on the US Security & Exchange Commission as Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand.8,9

In accordance with the Clearfield Trust Doctrine, a corporation does not have any implied right to govern a sovereign people. We hereby register our vote of no confidence in the actions or authority of the corporation unlawfully posing as a government in our territory.

This unlawful Ardern government and its ministers stand charged by the Nga Tikanga Māori Law Society and the Wakaminenga Maori Government of Nu Tireni with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity related to their wilful disregard for the suffering and loss of life resulting from their unlawful response to the engineered bioweapon known as COVID-19 and the unlawful forced administration of a poison to our people and forced medical experimentation.

Also charged with serious crimes related to a pandemic response, the WHO and Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have no standing or authority to form any binding agreement related to a pandemic response, in any jurisdiction and we command that these attempts shall cease and desist immediately pending the outcome of these charges under Rome statutes 6, 7 and 8, filed in the international Criminal Court 6 December 2021 …

You are hereby directed to cease and desist discussions or negotiations with the unlawful Arden Government, a NZ Corporation, known as Her Majesty Queen in Right of New Zealand. The Wakaminenga Maori Government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni reserves the right to discuss/negotiate with any international partner(s) of its choice, including the World Council for Health (WCH).”

Treaty Would Create Global Censorship of Health Information

The treaty would also give the WHO the power to censor health information worldwide. On the European Council’s web page discussing the pandemic treaty, under the headline “Restoring Trust in the International Health System,” it states:10

“The agreement … will set the foundation for better communication and information to citizens. Misinformation threatens public trust and risks undermining public health responses. To redeem citizen trust, concrete measures should be foreseen to improve the flow of reliable and accurate information as well as to tackle misinformation globally.”

In other words, under this treaty, we can expect even greater censorship than what we’ve experienced so far. Tech companies have already proven where their allegiance lies, and it’s not with the public.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others have deplatformed just about everyone who posts health information that runs counter to what the WHO is saying, real-world data and verifiable facts be damned. Financial platforms have also banned people for the same reason. Now imagine there being a binding international law that makes all that censorship mandatory.

Their Playbook Was Revealed in 2019

Officially, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO, second only to the U.S. government,11 but the combined contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO as of 2018.12

Gates has also been funding pandemic exercises, including Event 201,13 held October 18, 2019, which gained notoriety for its extraordinary accurate “predictions” of the COVID pandemic mere months before it was declared. Other co-sponsors included the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

However, earlier that year, February 14, 2019, Gates also funded the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s (NTI) pandemic exercise for senior global leaders on international response to deliberate biological events, which took place in Munich, Germany.14,15

NTI was founded to assess and reduce threats associated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons,16 but they’ve since expanded to include biological threats.17 Gates has also given grants to the NTI for vaccine development in relation to biological threats.18

While Event 201 featured a fictional coronavirus outbreak, the NTI exercise involved response to “deliberate, high consequence biological events.” In other words, a deliberate release of a genetically engineered bioweapon — in this case a pneumonic plague — for which there is no available treatment. This exercise scenario was the first of its kind. The video above features a summary of the four-phase exercise.

Curiously, in mid-November 2019, The Guardian, The New York Times,19 The Washington Post 20 and others reported that two people in China had in fact been diagnosed with pneumonic plague.21

In addition to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the NTI event was sponsored by the Wellcome Trust, the “philanthropic arm” of GlaxoSmithKline and an investor in Vaccitech, which owns the patents to AstraZeneca’s COVID jab.22 Both Gates and Wellcome are part of the technocratic globalist network that is pushing The Great Reset forward.

Another sponsor was Georgetown University,23 which also curated the World Economic Forum’s library of COVID-19 treatments (primarily focused on antivirals and COVID gene transfer injections).24

Curation was done by three Georgetown University professors and Rebecca Katz, director of the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security.25 Katz is also listed as an author on the NTI paper,26 “A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event,” published June 2019, in which they review the conclusions reached from that February 2019 exercise.

‘A Spreading Plague’

Together, these two pandemic exercises — both of which were sponsored by Gates — form a playbook for how to set up a biological attack and then hide the truth from the world so that you can not only profit from it in the short term but also centralize power, permanently transfer wealth and change the social and financial order to your own liking in the process.

Not surprisingly, a number of Event 201 participants also partook in the NTI’s exercise,27 and hold positions within technocratic institutions like Wellcome, the WHO and the World Economic Forum.

Event 201, in particular, focused not on finding remedies and saving lives, but how to control “misinformation.” A vast majority of that exercise centered around the creation of effective propaganda and censorship. Similarly, “A Spreading Plague” also includes the recommendation to enlist private companies as “assets” to carry out the globalists bidding:28

“In 2019 and 2020, international organizations, including the WHO, UNODA [United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs], and the World Economic Forum, should convene private sector companies to identify gaps and concrete next steps to strengthen the capability of companies to provide assets to assist with international response for deliberate biological attacks and other high-consequence biological events.”

In the NTI scenario — in which a fictional country called Carta is found to have engineered and released a biological weapon into the neighboring country of Vestia — we also see curious parallels to current-day accusations by Russia, which claims biological weapons research was being conducted in the Ukraine, necessitating defensive action.

All in all, the NTI tabletop exercise only adds to the evidence pile that suggests the COVID pandemic was premeditated and preplanned for financial and geopolitical purposes. It was a power grab.

The pandemic treaty with the WHO is precisely what the World Economic Forum and its allies now need, as it will put the technocratic cabal firmly in charge of the biosecurity of the whole world, and empower them to implement the rest of The Great Reset agenda.

You can learn more about The Great Reset on the World Economic Forum’s website29,30 and in Klaus Schwab’s book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset”31 (but you might want to review the overwhelmingly negative comments on Amazon first).

As noted in a July 21, 2020, World Economic Forum article,32 the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity for generations to come.” The answer, according to the World Economic Forum, is for countries to make sure the economic system is “built back better.”

Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital centrally controlled currency system that is tied to a vaccine passport and/or digital identity system.

Together, they will form a pervasive system of social control, as desired behaviors can be incentivized and undesired ones discouraged through loss of various “privileges,” including access to your own finances. Digital currency can even be programmed by the issuer so that it can only be used for certain types of purchases or expenses.

While it’s going to be very difficult to stop this runaway train that is The Great Reset, part of our defense is to oppose and prevent the WHO’s pandemic treaty from becoming reality, as we’ll lose our national sovereignty if it does.

Sources and References

March 31, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | 1 Comment

Reality Check: “100 day vaccines” are NOT possible

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | March 11, 2022

Neatly nestled behind the Ukraine headlines plastered all over the front pages, this past week has seen the World Health Organization meeting to discuss the global legislation to empowering the WHO to combat “future pandemics”.

The first consultation was held on March 1st. The EU passed a motion authorizing the bloc to negotiate such a treaty on March 3rd.

Nobody knows exactly what the hypothetical international regulations – dubbed the “Pandemic Treaty” – would entail, but there are hints.

It’s almost certainly going to involve some kind of international vaccine passport, possibly based on the SMART Health Cards currently rolling out all across the US.

It’s also interesting to note that this treaty is being developed in parallel to the UK “reforming” their Human Rights Act 1998 into a new “UK bill of rights” which seeks to prevent the “abuse” of “rights culture” and place a new emphasis on “social responsibility”.

However, the specifics will remain a mystery until the final proposal is published later this year.

One thing we do know though, is that a big part of the proposed “strengthening” of our pandemic response will be increased funding and resources for developing vaccines even faster than the Covid vaccine.

This aim was announced at the recent Global Pandemic Preparedness Summit in London, where the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced their “100 Days Mission”.

CEPI, for those who don’t know, is a foundation jointly funded by (among others) the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, whose stated aim is “to develop vaccines to stop future epidemics”.

The 100 Days Mission, which already has its own website and a trending hashtag (#100DaysMission), is pretty much exactly what it sounds like.

In future CEPI wants to produce new vaccines for unknown emerging diseases – what they call Disease X – within 100 days of the pathogen being isolated.

They’ve already secured 1.5 BILLION pounds sterling to further this effort.

Let that percolate.

Over a billion pounds to produce vaccines for a disease that – as yet – does not even exist, and may never exist.

This looks like a further step in the process, begun by the ‘pandemic’ narrative, of redefining everything we previously understood about how infective agents and vaccines interact.

Covid, let’s remember, was a disease-narrative totally removed from all social, scientific and historical context to create a fluid, agenda-driven alternate reality. And it looks as if this is intended to be the ‘new normal’.

Here’s a little refresher course on just how fast the Covid vaccines sped through the usual scientific process:

  • The virus was allegedly discovered in December.
  • It was fully genetically sequenced by January 10th 2020.
  • The paper that all the PCR tests were based on was peer-reviewed in less than 24 hours.
  • After decades of failure, the human race produced a dozen effective coronavirus vaccines in less than three months.
  • These vaccines were then “safety tested” in less than six months.

All told, from ‘discovering’ the virus to getting the vaccine(s) approved for use on people, it took 300 days.

This process normally takes at least 3-10 years.

It usually takes at least 5-10 years to bring a fully-tested vaccine to market. A paper by Pronker et al, “Risk in vaccine research and development quantified” (PubMed 2013), estimates the average development time for a new vaccine to be over 10 years.

Simply put, it has never been possible to make a vaccine for a new disease in 1000 days, let alone 100.

The speed with which the covid vacines were produced is totally unprecedented in the history of vaccines.

The idea you could further reduce this unprecedented time frame, and produce a safe and effective vaccine in only 100 days is frankly absurd. It’s surreal. Fictional.

For one thing, the vast majority of candidate vaccines don’t work.

The Pronker paper, found that of all potential vaccines products being researched, only about 6% ever actually hit the market.

So, back in the real world, a vaccine manufacturer will go through that 5-10 year process knowing there is a ~94% chance there will be nothing to show for it in the end.

After decades of trying they haven’t managed to produce a vaccine against AIDs, or the flu, or malaria or many other common diseases. These are conditions they know and (allegedly) understand, but they cannot make vaccines for them.

So, in that old world of veridical reality, even if you managed to make a vaccine in 100 days, the odds are it either won’t produce immunity, or it will but will also produce harmful side effects, or maybe it will do literally nothing.

Now, granted, science and technology are not static. We are always moving forward and making progress… but that’s irrelevant to this issue, because even if vaccine manufacturing technology really did take a huge leap forward just in time to battle covid, you still can’t produce a safe vaccine in 100 days, or even 300 days – because the process NEEDS time.

It takes time to test rigorously, it takes time – a lot of it – to a assess long term side effects. The clue is right there in the name.

No amount of new tech is going to permit you to know the ten-year effects of a vaccine in under three months.

With the public eye fixed on Ukraine, and Covid now firmly in the collective unconsciousness’s rearview mirror the powers that be are trying to normalise what was, inherently, an abnormal, unreal (if not impossible) process. To make it easier “next time”.

We’ve already seen Bill Gates lament that the vaccine was too slow, and he was partially right. The Covid story didn’t keep people hypnotized enough to secure everything they needed, in part because their “vaccine” rollout took almost a year.

But for the future “Disease X” waiting in the wings, it will officially only take three months, and the fear will still be fresh. The fact the process will be completely incompatible with reality or sense will not matter in the slightest.

To be clear: You cannot develop a “safe and effective” vaccine for a brand new disease in three months.

You can’t do it in one year.

And if in the future they claim to have done so, they will be lying.

March 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment