Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

COVID-19: Moderna Gets Its Miracle

BY WHITNEY WEBB | UNLIMITED HANGOUT | OCTOBER 28, 2021

COVID-19 erased the regulatory and trial-related hurdles that Moderna could never surmount before. Yet, how did Moderna know that COVID-19 would create those conditions months before anyone else, and why did they later claim that their vaccine being tested in NIH trials was different than their commercial candidate?

In late 2019, the biopharmaceutical company Moderna was facing a series of challenges that not only threatened its ability to ever take a product to market, and thus turn a profit, but its very existence as a company. There were multiple warning signs that Moderna was essentially another Theranos-style fraud, with many of these signs growing in frequency and severity as the decade drew to a close. Part I of this three-part series explored the disastrous circumstances in which Moderna found itself at that time, with the company’s salvation hinging on the hope of a divine miracle, a “Hail Mary” save of sorts, as stated by one former Moderna employee.

While the COVID-19 crisis that emerged in the first part of 2020 can hardly be described as an act of benevolent divine intervention for most, it certainly can be seen that way from Moderna’s perspective. Key issues for the company, including seemingly insurmountable regulatory hurdles and its inability to advance beyond animal trials with its most promising—and profitable—products, were conveniently wiped away, and not a moment too soon. Since January 2020, the value of Moderna’s stock—which had embarked on a steady decline since its IPO—grew from $18.89 per share to its current value of $339.57 per share, thanks to the success of its COVID-19 vaccine.

Yet, how exactly was Moderna’s “Hail Mary” moment realized, and what were the forces and events that ensured it would make it through the FDA’s emergency use authorization (EUA) process? In examining that question, it becomes quickly apparent that Moderna’s journey of saving grace involved much more than just cutting corners in animal and human trials and federal regulations. Indeed, if we are to believe Moderna executives, it involved supplying formulations for some trial studies that were not the same as their COVID-19 vaccine commercial candidate, despite the data resulting from the former being used to sell Moderna’s vaccine to the public and federal health authorities. Such data was also selectively released at times to align with preplanned stock trades by Moderna executives, turning many of Moderna’s highest-ranking employees into millionaires, and even billionaires, while the COVID-19 crisis meant economic calamity for most Americans.

Not only that, but—as Part II of this three-part series will show, Moderna and a handful of its collaborators at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) seemed to know that Moderna’s miracle had arrived—well before anyone else knew or could have known. Was it really a coincidental mix of “foresight” and “serendipity” that led Moderna and the NIH to plan to develop a COVID-19 vaccine days before the viral sequence was even published and months before a vaccine was even considered necessary for a still unknown disease? If so, why would Moderna—a company clearly on the brink—throw everything into and gamble the entire company on a vaccine project that had no demonstrated need at the time?

The Serendipitous Origins of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine

When early January 2020 brought news of a novel coronavirus outbreak originating in Wuhan, China, Moderna’s CEO Stéphane Bancel immediately emailed Barney Graham, deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health, and asked to be sent the genetic sequence for what would become known as SAR-CoV-2, allegedly because media reports on the outbreak “troubled” him. The date of that email varies according to different media reports, though most place it as having been sent on either January 6th or 7th.

A few weeks before Bancel’s email to Graham, Moderna was quickly approaching the end of the line, their desperately needed “Hail Mary” still not having materialized. “We were freaked out about money,” Stephen Hoge would later remember of Moderna’s late 2019 circumstances. Not only were executives “cutting back on research and other expenditures” like never before, but – as STAT News would later report – “cash from investors had stopped pouring in and partnerships with some drug makers had been discontinued. In meetings at Moderna, Bancel emphasized the need to stretch every dollar and employees were told to reduce travel and other expenses, a frugality they were advised would last several years.”

At the tail end of 2019, Graham was in a very different mood than Bancel, having emailed the leader of the coronavirus team at his NIH lab saying, “Get ready for 2020,” apparently viewing the news out of Wuhan in late 2019 as a harbinger of something significant. He went on, in the days before he was contacted by Bancel, to “run a drill he had been turning over in his mind for years” and called his long-time colleague Jason McLellan “to talk about the game plan” for getting a head start on producing a vaccine the world did not yet know it needed. When Bancel called Graham soon afterward and asked about this new virus, Graham responded that he didn’t know yet but that “they were ready if it turned out to be a coronavirus.” The Washington Post claimed that Graham’s apparent foreknowledge that a coronavirus vaccine would be needed before anyone officially knew what type of disease was circulating in Wuhan was a fortunate mix of “serendipity and foresight.”

Dr. Barney Graham and Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, VRC coronavirus vaccine lead, discuss COVID-19 research with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Sen. Benjamin Cardin and Rep. Jamie Raskin, March 6, 2020; Source: NIH

A report in Boston magazine offers a slightly different account than that reported by the Washington Post. Per that article, Graham had told Bancel, “If [the virus] is a coronavirus, we know what to do and have proven mRNA is effective.” Per that report, this assertion of efficacy from Graham referred to Moderna’s early stage human-trial data published in September 2019 regarding its chikungunya vaccine candidate, which was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as its cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine candidate.

As mentioned in Part I of this series, the chikungunya vaccine study data released at that time included the participation of just four subjects, three of whom developed significant side effects that led Moderna to state that they would reformulate the vaccine in question and would pause trials on that vaccine candidate. In the case of the CMV vaccine candidate, the data was largely positive, but it was widely noted that the vaccine still needed to pass through larger and longer clinical trials before its efficacy was in fact “proven,” as Graham later claimed. In addition, Graham implied that this early stage trial of Moderna’s CMV vaccine candidate was somehow proof that an mRNA vaccine would be effective against coronaviruses, which makes little sense since CMV is not a coronavirus but instead hails from the family of viruses that includes chickenpox, herpes, and shingles.

Bancel apparently had reached out to Graham because Graham and his team at the NIH had been working in direct partnership with Moderna on vaccines since 2017, soon after Moderna had delayed its Crigler-Najjar and related therapies in favor of vaccines. According to Boston magazine, Moderna had been working closely with Graham specifically “on [Moderna’s] quest to bring a whole new class of vaccines to market” and Graham had personally visited Moderna’s facilities in November 2019. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the NIH’s infectious-disease division NIAID, has called his unit’s collaboration with Moderna, in the years prior to and also during the COVID-19 crisis, “most extraordinary.”

The year 2017, besides being the year when Moderna made its pivot to vaccines (due to its inability to produce safe multidose therapies, see Part I), was also a big year for Graham. That year he and his lab filed a patent for the “2P mutation” technique whereby recombinant coronavirus spike proteins can be stabilized in a prefusion state and used as more effective immunogens. If a coronavirus vaccine were to be produced using this patent, Graham’s team would financially benefit, though federal law caps their annual royalties. Nonetheless, it would still yield a considerable sum for the named researchers, including Graham.

However, due to the well-known difficulties with coronavirus vaccine development, including antibody dependent enhancement risk, it seemed that commercial use of Graham’s patent was a pipe dream. Yet, today, the 2P mutation patent, also known as the ’070 patent, is not just in use in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, but also in the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, Pfizer/BioNTech, and CureVac. Experts at New York University School of Law have noted that the 2P mutation patent first filed in 2016 “sounds remarkably prescient” in light of the COVID crisis that emerged a few years later while later publications from the NIH (still pre-COVID) revealed that the NIH’s view on “the breadth and importance of the ’070 patent” as well as its potential commercial applications was also quite prescient, given that there was little justification at the time to hold such a view.

On January 10, three days after the reported initial conversation between Bancel and Graham on the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, Graham met with Hamilton Bennett, the program leader for Moderna’s vaccine portfolio. Graham asked Bennett “if Moderna would be interested in using the new [novel coronavirus] to test the company’s accelerated vaccine-making capabilities.” According to Boston, Graham then mused, “That way . . . if ever there came a day when a new virus emerged that threatened global public health, Moderna and the NIH could know how long it would take them to respond.”

Graham’s “musings” to Bennett are interesting considering his earlier statements made to others, such as “Get ready for 2020” and his team, in collaboration with Moderna, would be “ready if [the virus then circulating in Wuhan, China] turned out to be a coronavirus.” Is this merely “serendipity” and “foresight”, as the Washington Post suggested, or was it something else? It is worth noting that the above accounts are those that have been given by Bancel and Graham themselves, as the actual contents of these critical January 2020 emails have not been publicly released.

When the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was published on January 11, NIH scientists and Moderna researchers got to work determining which targeted genetic sequence would be used in their vaccine candidate. Later reports, however, claimed that this initial work toward a COVID-19 vaccine was merely intended to be a “demonstration project.”

Other odd features of the Moderna-NIH COVID-19 vaccine-development story emerged with Bancel’s account of the role the World Economic Forum played in shaping his “foresight” when it came to the development of a COVID-19 vaccine back in January 2020. On January 21, 2020, Bancel reportedly began to hear about “a far darker version of the future” at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where he spent time with “two [anonymous] prominent infectious-disease experts from Europe” who shared with him data from “their contacts on the ground in China, including Wuhan.” That data, per Bancel, showed a dire situation that left his mind “reeling” and led him to conclude, that very day, that “this isn’t going to be SARS. It’s going to be the 1918 flu pandemic.”

Stéphane Bancel speaks at the Breakthroughs in Cancer Care session at WEF annual meeting, January 24, 2020; Source: WEF

This realization is allegedly what led Bancel to contact Moderna cofounder and chairman, as well as a WEF technology pioneer, Noubar Afeyan. Bancel reportedly interrupted Afeyan’s celebration of his daughter’s birthday to tell him “what he’d learned about the virus” and to suggest that “Moderna begin to build the vaccine—for real.” The next day, Moderna held an executive meeting, which Bancel attended remotely, and there was considerable internal debate about whether a vaccine for the novel coronavirus would be needed. To Bancel, the “sheer act of debating” pursuing a vaccine for the virus was “absurd” given that he was now convinced, after a single day at Davos, that “a global pandemic was about to descend like a biblical plague, and whatever distractions the vaccine caused internally at Moderna were irrelevant.”

Bancel spent the rest of his time at the Davos annual meeting “building partnerships, generating excitement, and securing funding,” which led to the Moderna collaboration agreement with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations—a project largely funded by Bill Gates. (Bancel and Moderna’s cozy relationship with the WEF, dating back to 2013, was discussed in Part I as were the Forum’s efforts, beginning well before COVID-19, to promote mRNA-based therapies as essential to the remaking of the health-care sector in the age of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution). At the 2020 annual meeting attended by Bancel and others it was noted that a major barrier to the widespread adoption of these and other related “health-care” technologies was “public distrust.” The panel where that issue was specifically discussed was entitled “When Humankind Overrides Evolution.”

As also noted in Part I of this series, a few months earlier, in October 2019, major players in what would become the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, particularly Rick Bright and Anthony Fauci, had discussed during a Milken Institute panel on vaccines how a “disruptive” event would be needed to push the public to accept “nontraditional” vaccines such as mRNA vaccines; to convince the public that flu-like illnesses are scarier than traditionally believed; and to remove existing bureaucratic safeguards in the vaccine development-and-approval processes.

That panel took place less than two weeks after the Event 201 simulation, jointly hosted by the World Economic Forum, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Event 201 simulated “an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus” that was “modeled largely on SARS but . . . more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.” The recommendations of the simulation panel were to considerably increase investment in new vaccine technologies and industrial approaches, favoring rapid vaccine development and manufacturing. As mentioned in Part I, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security had also conducted the June 2001 Dark Winter simulation that briefly preceded and predicted major aspects of the 2001 anthrax attacks, and some of its participants had apparent foreknowledge of those attacks. Other Dark Winter participants later worked to sabotage the FBI investigation into those attacks after their origin was traced back to a US military source.

It is hard to imagine that Bancel, whose company had long been closely partnered with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation, was unaware of the exercise and surprised by the closely analogous event that transpired within three months. Given the accounts given by Bancel, Graham, and others, it seems likely there is more to the story regarding the origins of Moderna’s early and “serendipitous” push to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, given that Moderna was in dire financial circumstances at the time, it seems odd that the company would gamble everything on a vaccine project that was opposed by the few investors that were still willing to fund Moderna in January/February 2020. Why would they divert their scant resources towards a project born only out of Barney Graham’s “musings” that Moderna could try to test the speed of its vaccine development capabilities and Bancel’s doomsday view that a “biblical plague” was imminent, especially when their investors opposed the idea?

Moderna Gets to Bypass Its Long-Standing Issues with R & D

Moderna produced the first batch of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate on February 7, one month after Bancel and Graham’s initial conversation. After a sterility test and other mandatory tests, the first batch of its vaccine candidate, called mRNA-1273, shipped to the NIH on February 24. For the first time in a long time, Moderna’s stock price surged. NIH researchers administered the first dose of the candidate into a human volunteer less than a month later, on March 16.

Controversially, in order to begin its human trial on March 16, regulatory agencies had to allow Moderna to bypass major aspects of traditional animal trials, which many experts and commentators noted was highly unusual but was now deemed necessary due to the urgency of the crisis. Instead of developing the vaccine in distinct sequential stages, as is the custom, Moderna “decided to do all of the steps [relating to animal trials] simultaneously.” In other words, confirming that the candidate is working before manufacturing an animal-grade vaccine, conducting animal trials, analyzing the animal-trial data, manufacturing a vaccine for use in human trials, and beginning human trials were all conducted simultaneously by Moderna. Thus, the design of human trials for the Moderna vaccine candidate was not informed by animal-trial data.

Lt. Javier Lopez Coronado and Hospitalman Francisco Velasco inspect a box of COVID-19 vaccine vials at the Naval Health Clinic in Corpus Christi, TX, December 2020; Source: Wikimedia

This should have been a major red flag, given Moderna’s persistent difficulties in getting its products past animal trials. As noted in Part I, up until the COVID-19 crisis, most of Moderna’s experiments and products had only been tested in animals, with only a handful able to make it to human trials. In the case of the Crigler-Najjar therapy that it was forced to indefinitely delay, toxicity concerns related to the mRNA delivery system being used had emerged in the animal trials, which Moderna was now greenlighted to largely skip. Given that Moderna had subsequently been forced to abandon all multidose products because of poor results in animal trials, being allowed to skip this formerly insurmountable obstacle was likely seen as a boon to some at the company. It is also astounding that, given Moderna’s history with problematic animal trials, more scrutiny was not devoted to the regulatory decision to allow Moderna to essentially skip such trials.

Animal studies conducted on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine did identify problems that should have informed human trials, but this did not happen because of the regulatory decision. For example, animal reproductive toxicity studies on the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine that are cited by the European Medicines Agency found that there was reduced fertility in rats that received the vaccine (e. g., overall pregnancy index of 84.1% in vaccinated rats versus 93.2% in the unvaccinated) as well as an increased proportion of aberrant bone development in their fetuses. That study has been criticized for failing to report on the accumulation of vaccine in the placenta as well as failing to investigate the effect of vaccine doses administered during key pregnancy milestones, such as embryonic organogenesis. In addition, the number of animals tested is unstated, making the statistical power of the study unknown. At the very least, the 9 percent drop in the fertility index among vaccinated rats should have prompted expanded animal trials to investigate concerns of reproductive toxicity before testing in humans.

Yet, Moderna declined to further investigate reproductive toxicity in animal trials and entirely excluded reproductive toxicity studies from its simultaneous human trials, as pregnant women were excluded from participation in the clinical trials of its vaccine. Despite this, pregnant women were labeled a priority group for receiving the vaccine after Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted for the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Per the New England Journal of Medicine, this meant that “pregnant women and their clinicians were left to weigh the documented risks of Covid-19 infection against the unknown safety risks of vaccination in deciding whether to receive the vaccine.”

Moderna only began recruiting for an “observational pregnancy outcome study” of its COVID-19 vaccine in humans in mid-July 2021, and that study is projected to conclude in early 2024. Nevertheless, the Centers for Disease Control recommends the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine in “people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future.” This recommendation is largely based on the CDC’s publication of preliminary data on mRNA COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnant women in June 2021, which is based on passive reporting systems in use within the United States (i. e., VAERS and v-safe).

Even in the limited scope of this study, 115 of the 827 women who had a completed pregnancy during the study lost the baby, 104 of which were spontaneous abortions before 20 weeks of gestation. Of these 827 pregnant women, only 127 had received a mRNA vaccine before the 3rd trimester. This appears to suggest an increased risk among those women who took the vaccine before the 3rd trimester, but the selective nature of the data makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions. Despite claims from the New England Journal of Medicine that the study’s data was “reassuring”, the study’s authors ultimately stated that their study, which mainly looked at women who began vaccination in the third trimester, was unable to draw “conclusions about spontaneous abortions, congenital anomalies, and other potential rare neonatal outcomes.” This is just one example of the problems caused by “cutting corners” with respect to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine trials in humans and animals, including those conducted by the NIH.

Meanwhile, throughout February, March and April, Bancel was “begging for money” as Moderna reportedly lacked “enough money to buy essential ingredients for the shots” and “needed hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps even more than a billion dollars” to manufacture its vaccine, which had only recently begun trials. Bancel, whose tenure at Moderna had long been marked by his ability to charm investors, kept coming up empty-handed.

Then, in mid-April 2020, Moderna’s long-time cooperation with the US government again paid off when Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) awarded the company $483 million to “accelerate the development of its vaccine candidate for the novel coronavirus.” A year later, the amount invested in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine by the US government had grown to about $6 billion dollars, just $1.5 billion short of the company’s entire value at the time of its pre-COVID IPO.

BARDA, throughout 2020, was directly overseen by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), led by the extremely corrupt Robert Kadlec, who had spent roughly the last two decades designing BARDA and helping shape legislation that concentrated many of the emergency powers of HHS under the Office of the ASPR. Conveniently, Kadlec occupied the powerful role of ASPR that he had spent years sculpting at the exact moment when the pandemic, which he had simulated the previous year via Crimson Contagion, took place. As mentioned in Part I, he was also a key participant in the June 2001 Dark Winter exercise. In his capacity as ASPR during 2020, Kadlec oversaw nearly all major aspects of the HHS COVID-19 response and had a key role in BARDA’s funding decisions during that period, as well as in the affairs of the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration as they related to COVID-19 medical countermeasures, including vaccines.

On May 1, 2020, Moderna announced a ten-year manufacturing agreement with the Lonza Group, a multinational chemical and biotech company based in Switzerland. Per the agreement, Lonza would build out vaccine production sites for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, first in the US and Switzerland, before expanding to Lonza’s facilities in other countries. The scale of production discussed in the agreement was to produce 1 billion doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine annually. It was claimed that the ten-year agreement would also focus on other products, even though it was well known at the time that other Moderna products were “nowhere close to being ready for the market.” Moderna executives would later state that they were still scrambling for the cash to manufacture doses at the time the agreement with Lonza was made.

The decision to forge a partnership to produce that quantity of doses annually suggests marvelous foresight on the part of Moderna and Lonza that the COVID-19 vaccine would become an annual or semiannual affair, given that current claims of waning immunity could not have been known back then because initial trials of the Moderna vaccine had begun less than two months earlier and there was still no published data on its efficacy or safety. However, as will be discussed Part III of this series, Moderna needs to sell “pandemic level” quantities of its COVID-19 vaccine every year in order to avoid a return of the existential crises it faced before COVID-19 (for more on those crises, see Part I). The implications of this, given Moderna’s previous inability to produce a safe product for multidosing and lack of evidence that past issues were addressed in the development of its COVID-19 vaccine, will also be discussed in Part III of this series.

It is also noteworthy that, like Moderna, Lonza as a company and its leaders are closely affiliated with the World Economic Forum. In addition, at the time the agreement was reached in May 2020, Moncef Slaoui, the former GlaxoSmithKline executive, served on the boards of both Moderna and Lonza. Slaoui withdrew from the boards of both companies two weeks after the agreement was reached to become the head of the US-led vaccination-development drive Operation Warp Speed. Moderna praised Slaoui’s appointment to head the vaccination project.

By mid-May, Moderna’s stock price—whose steady decline before COVID-19 was detailed in Part I —had tripled since late February 2020, all on high hopes for its COVID-19 vaccine. Since Moderna’s stock had begun to surge in February, media reports noted that “nearly every progress update—or media appearance by Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel—has been gobbled up by investors, who seem to have an insatiable appetite for the stock.” Bancel’s tried-and-tested method of keeping Moderna afloat on pure hype, though it was faltering before COVID-19, was again paying off for the company thanks to the global crisis and related panic.

Some critics did emerge, however, calling Moderna’s now $23 billion valuation “insane,” especially considering that the company had posted a net loss of $514 million the previous year and had yet to produce a safe or effective medicine since its founding a decade earlier. In January 2020, Moderna had been worth a mere $5 billion, $2 billion less than its valuation at its December 2018 IPO. If it hadn’t been for the onset of the COVID crisis and a fresh injection of hype, it seems that Moderna’s valuation would have continued to shrink. Yet, thankfully for Moderna, investors were valuing Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine even before the release of any clinical data. Market analysts at the time were forecasting Moderna’s 2022 revenue at about $1 billion, a figure based almost entirely on coronavirus vaccine sales, since all other Moderna products were years away from a market debut. Yet, even with this forecasted revenue, Moderna’s stock value in mid-May 2020 was trading at twenty-three times its projected sales, a phenomenon unique to Moderna among biotech stocks at the time. For comparison, the other highest multiples in biotech at the time were Vertex Pharmaceutical and Seattle Genetics, which were then trading at nine and twelve times their projected revenue, respectively. Now, with the implementation of booster shot policies around the world, revenue forecasts for Moderna now predict the company will make a staggering $35 billion in COVID-19 vaccine sales through next year.

Moderna’s surging stock price went into overdrive when, on May 18, 2020, the company published “positive” interim data for a phase 1 trial of its COVID-19 vaccine. The results generated great press, public enthusiasm, and a 20 percent boost in Moderna’s stock price. Just hours after the press release, Moderna announced a new effort to raise $1.3 billion by selling more stock. It has since been revealed that Moderna had hired Morgan Stanley to manage that stock sale on May 15.

However, left largely unmentioned by the press or Moderna itself was that the ostensibly “scientific study” only provided data from 8 of the 45 volunteers—4 volunteers each from the 15- and 100-microgram dose cohorts—regarding the development of neutralizing antibodies. The age of these mysteriously selected 8 volunteers was also not published, and other key data was missing, making it “impossible to know whether mRNA-1273 [Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine] was ineffective [in the remaining 37 volunteers whose antibody data was not disclosed], or whether the results were not available at this point.” Meanwhile, in the highest-dose cohort, in which volunteers received 250 micrograms, 21 percent of volunteers experienced a grade 3 adverse event, which is defined by the FDA as “preventing daily activity and requiring medical intervention.”

STAT published a report the next day that was skeptical of Moderna’s press release and seemed to imply the data release was aimed at boosting the company’s stock valuation, which hit $29 billion after the news. STAT reporter Helen Branswell called this jump in valuation “an astonishing feat for a company that currently sells zero products.” Branswell’s report noted several things, including that several vaccine experts had noted that “based on the information made available [by Moderna], there’s really no way to know how impressive—or not—the vaccine may be.” Moderna later defended its withholding of key data in the press release, claiming that it was done to respect “federal securities laws and the rules of scientific journals” and to prevent a potential leak of the data from insiders at the NIH. Moderna executives have more recently claimed that the “timely” release of these selective data had been linked to their “desperate” fundraising efforts at the time and ultimately prevented them from “losing” the COVID-19 vaccine race.

The STAT report also noted that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which was running the trial referenced by Moderna in the press release, was completely silent on the matter, declining to put out a press release that day and declining to comment on Moderna’s announcement. This was described as uncharacteristic for NIAID, especially considering they were the part of the NIH co-developing the vaccine with Moderna and running the trial. STAT noted that, normally, “NIAID doesn’t hide its light under a bushel. The institute generally trumpets its findings.” In this case, however, they declined to do so. It emerged in early June 2020 that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads NIAID, had been displeased with Moderna’s decision to publish incomplete data on the trial, telling STAT that he would have preferred “to wait until we had the data from the entire Phase 1 . . . and publish it in a reputable journal and show all the data.”

Tal Zaks, Chief Scientific Officer at Moderna; Source: The Forward

It subsequently emerged that Moderna’s top executives, including chief financial officer Lorence Kim and chief scientific officer Tal Zaks, had used their insider knowledge of the coming press release to trade company stock that netted them several million each following the jump in Moderna’s stock that resulted from the press release’s positive buzz. A little over a week after the press release had been published, STAT reported that the top five Moderna executives had cashed out $89 million in shares since the company’s stock price had begun to soar earlier in the year. Per that report, the amount of trades by these five executives alone between January and May 2020 was “nearly three times as many stock transactions than in all of 2019.” By September 2020, the amount of stock shed by Moderna executives amounted to $236 million. Less criticized or even mentioned by the press was Moderna’s move, less than a month later, to create a tax haven in Europe for its European COVID-19 vaccine sales.

Though the trades were deemed slimy but legal, mainstream media reports essentially confirmed that the early release of the interim data was planned to “raise the share price of Moderna’s stock so that executives could cash in during the period of euphoria” that followed. Some watchdog groups called on the SEC to investigate Moderna executives for manipulating the stock market. The critical reporting on executive stock trades and Moderna’s release of incomplete data led the company’s stock to temporarily trend downward throughout the rest of May. As previously mentioned, Moderna has repeatedly attempted to explain away the timing of this particular press release, offering new explanations as recently as this week.

Moderna’s Shocking Claim about Its Vaccine Candidate

In mid-June 2020, researchers at the NIH and Moderna published a manuscript preprint of preclinical data for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. This preprint described the vaccine as employing a delivery system covered in a patent owned by the company Arbutus Biopharma and described the results of that vaccine in tests on mice. As discussed in Part I, Moderna has long been locked in a bitter legal dispute with Arbutus, which has threatened Moderna’s ability to ever turn a profit on any product that relies on Arbutus-patented technology regarding lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery systems for its mRNA products. Moderna has claimed for years it was no longer using the Arbutus-derived system on which it once entirely relied, with Bancel even going so far as to publicly call it “not very good.” However, Moderna has provided no real evidence that it no longer relies on the technology covered in the Arbutus patents. The June 2020 manuscript preprint from the NIH and Moderna provided evidence indicating that the same Arbutus-derived technology that had caused major toxicity issues in multidose products Moderna had previously attempted to develop was also being used in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate.

Yet, when Moderna’s chief corporate affairs officer, Ray Jordan, was challenged on this point by Forbes, Jordan asserted that the preprint’s data had been generated using a formulation of a COVID-19 vaccine that is not the same as the vaccine itself, stating, “While the authors of the preprint used the term ‘mRNA-1273’ for convenience of the reader, the preprint does not describe the cGMP process by which we make our messenger RNA and LNP or the final drug product composition in our commercial candidate (mRNA-1273).” When Forbes asked Jordan if he could provide any specifics, including the LNP molar ratio of the new LNP technology to prove that the LNPs in use in the COVID-19 vaccine were in fact different from those covered by the Arbutus patent, Jordan flat out refused.

Arbutus Biopharma’s office in Warminster, Pennsylvania; Source: Philadelphia Business Journal

Despite Jordan’s claims, a Moderna preclinical study regarding its COVID-19 vaccine was published a month later, and that July study noted that the Moderna vaccine used LNPs as described in a 2019 paper, which in turn reveals that the LNPs in question were the same as those used in the June study. This paper included the results from the study originally promoted by Moderna in May that led to a jump in Moderna’s stock price. Now published in full, the study generated lots of positive press, including a statement from the NIAID’s Fauci that “no matter how you slice this, this is good news.” A jump in US government funding of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine also shortly followed the study’s publication. At the time, CBS News remarked that Moderna’s stock price, which had been sliding since its late 2018 IPO, had been essentially rescued by the COVID-19 crisis, as “shares of Moderna—which has never brought a product to market over its ten-year existence—have soared as much as 380 percent since the start of the year as news emerged [in January] of its promising potential for producing a vaccine. [Moderna’s] stock price was less than $20 in early January and around $95 on Friday [July 17, 2020].” Today, by comparison, Moderna has consistently been trading above $300 a share.

Yet, if we take Ray Jordan at his word with respect to the preprint published in June, Moderna appears to have been engaged in rather slimy behavior. If Jordan was telling the truth, it appears that this July study, which appears to use the vaccine candidate containing the same LNPs as those described in the June 2020 preprint, also used a formulation not consistent with the company’s commercial vaccine candidate. If so, given that the July study was the same study referenced by Moderna’s controversial May press release tied to insider stock trades, Moderna appears to have used “positive” data generated by a vaccine candidate other than its commercial vaccine candidate to boost stock prices and ameliorate the company’s financial situation while also generating millions for executives. This, of course, says nothing about the separate but critically important issue that the vaccine candidate used in these studies, including the NIH study, is not necessarily the same as the commercial candidate used in clinical trials.

It seems that the only reason that Moderna would make such an outrageous claim to Forbes would be to distance its COVID-19 vaccine from its past controversies that largely have their root in Moderna’s LNP-related problems, which it had claimed to have already resolved. It is not clear if the motive behind such a gambit is principally related to the legal dispute with Arbutus or the past safety issues Moderna encountered with multidose therapies.

Adding to the confusion about the LNPs in use in Moderna’s products is that, a few days earlier in July, Moderna had published results on a separate vaccine candidate, this one for HIV, that appeared to use the exact same LNP technology that is covered by the Arbutus patent. The LNPs described in that study included the same components as those described in the Arbutus patent and the same molar ratio. Moderna appeared to be referencing this issue in their August 6, 2020, SEC filing, which states: “There are many issued and pending third-party patents that claim aspects of oligonucleotide delivery technologies that we may need for our mRNA therapeutic and vaccine candidates or marketed products, including mRNA-1273, if approved.”

By the end of 2020, Moderna claimed in a December filing with the SEC that, while it had “initially used LNP formulations that were based on known lipid systems,” that is, the Arbutus LNPs, it had “invested heavily in delivery science and ha[s] developed LNP technologies, as well as alternative nanoparticle approaches.” Despite the claims it made in this filing, however, it remained unclear as to whether the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was using Arbutus technology or the technology it purported to have developed on its own without infringing on Arbutus’s intellectual property.

Moderna’s claims that it now uses a different LNP system than the one that caused such major issues is based on the company’s development and implementation of a lipid structure now known as SM-102. This lipid structure was first revealed by Moderna in a 2019 publication under the name Lipid H, and, in that paper and since, Moderna has claimed that its LNP system is now superior to that which it previously used because it is using SM-102 instead of the original Arbutus lipids. However, it is critical to note that Moderna’s use of SM-102 does not necessarily mean the company is not violating the Arbutus patents, which cover the use of LNPs that combine cationic and PEGylated lipids in specific proportions.

Despite claims from Moderna that SM-102 resolved both the company’s patent-related and toxicity issues with its LNP system (as discussed in Part I), Moderna has declined to disclose SM-102’s exact structure or whether it carries a net positive charge at physiological pH, the latter of which could lead to proof of continued infringement on the Arbutus patent. In addition, there are no studies on the distribution, degradation, and/or elimination of SM-102 from the body, meaning that the accumulation of the lipids or their capacity to damage organs is not documented. The obvious lack of study of SM-102’s properties and effects on the human body was largely circumvented by public health authorities during the emergency approval process by using the same criteria for the Moderna vaccine candidate that is used for traditional vaccines that do not utilize the novel mRNA approach. These “traditional” criteria therefore do not include any requirements for data on LNP safety.

Overall, the evidence seems to point toward Moderna’s claims that its COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t use Arbutus-derived LNPs as being false. The other possibility is that Moderna attempted to modify the LNP system but only slightly so that potential identifiers, such as the molar ratio, remained the same. In this case, Arbutus could still claim that the LNPs currently in use by Moderna and in its COVID-19 vaccine infringe on their patent. It is also thus likely that the safety issues Moderna had acknowledged with this LNP system were largely unaffected if the potential modifications were indeed minor. Yet, if either of these scenarios is correct, the question becomes – Why wouldn’t Arbutus challenge Moderna once again to obtain royalty payments stemming from its COVID-19 vaccine?

The answer seems to lie mostly in optics and public relations. As STAT wrote last July, were Arbutus to sue Moderna over patent infringement in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, “that would mean taking the substantial risk that it would be perceived as a company holding up a desperately needed medicine out of concern for its bottom line.” This also seemed to be part of the motive behind Moderna’s altruistically framed promise not to enforce its own COVID-19–related patents until the pandemic is declared over. Observers have noted that this move by Moderna was not only a public relations boon for the company but also “set a disarming tone in the space that may serve to deter others in the space [e. g., Arbutus] from acting too defensively or aggressively,” largely due to “fear of the potential public relations backlash.”

While July 2020 brought a surge in valuation and positive press for Moderna and its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, it also brought an unfavorable ruling for Moderna in its long-running dispute with Arbutus, one that opened the door for Arbutus to file an injunction against Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, if they chose, to force the negotiation of a license with Moderna. The news led to Moderna’s stock price falling by 10 percent, wiping out $3 billion in value. However, most likely for the reasons outlined above, Arbutus ultimately declined to jump on the decision to block Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine from advancing in the hopes of securing royalties. Yet, they reserve the ability to do so, if and when the perceived urgency of the COVID-19 crisis fades.

Moderna has asserted that the decision would not affect its COVID-19 vaccine as the company was “not aware of any significant intellectual property impediments for any products we intend to commercialize.” Thus, Ray Jordan’s assertions and the lack of “clear and convincing” evidence that Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine relies on Arbutus-patented technology appears to have been sufficient for Moderna to make this claim. This seems to be due to a lack of interest by the mainstream media or federal agencies/regulators in demanding concrete evidence that Moderna’s LNP system used in its COVID-19 vaccine does not rely on Arbutus-patented technology.

Despite the issues raised above in relation to the vaccine study data published in June and July, the positive press attention—particularly after the July publication—translated just a month later into the US government entering into a significant supply agreement with Moderna on August 11, 2020. Per that agreement, the government would pay $1.525 billion for 100 million doses with the option to purchase an additional 400 million doses in the future, all of which it has since purchased. Per Moderna’s press release, the agreement meant that the US government had, by that point, paid $2.48 billion for “early access” to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Roughly a month later, it was revealed that the US government had been paying for much more. On September 10, 2020, BARDA joined long-time Moderna funder and “strategic ally” DARPA in scrutinizing contracts that had been awarded to the company due to Moderna’s failure to disclose the role government support had played in its numerous patent applications. The announcement came after Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), which advocates for protecting taxpayer investments in patents, found that none of the patents or applications assigned to Moderna in the company’s entire history had disclosed the considerable US government funding it had received at the time those patents were filed, which is required by the 1980 Bayh-Doyle Act and by the regulations of the Patent and Trademark Office. Per KEI, this translates into the US government owning certain rights over the patents, and thus US taxpayers may have an ownership stake in vaccines made and sold by Moderna.

Despite the clear evidence that Moderna failed to disclose the considerable amount of US government funding prior to and during the COVID crisis in its patent applications, Moderna responded to KEI and the BARDA/DARPA “scrutiny” by stating that it was “aware of and consults with our agency collaborators regarding our contractual obligations under each of these agreements, including those with respect to IP [intellectual property], and believe we comply with those obligations.” As of the writing of this article, BARDA and DARPA have taken no action against Moderna for their illegal omission about having received substantial government funding in their patent applications and filings. Instead, a month after DARPA claimed to be “scrutinizing” Moderna’s patent applications, it awarded the company up to $56 million to develop small-scale mobile means of manufacturing its products—namely, its COVID-19 vaccine and its personalized cancer vaccine.

Moderna: “Just Trust Us” 

What quickly stands out about Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate over the course of its rapid development in 2020 was the willingness of federal agencies like NIH, BARDA, and others, as well as the mainstream press, to take Moderna at its word concerning critical aspects of its vaccine and its development, even when the evidence appeared to contradict its claims. This is particularly evident in Moderna claiming that it resolved its LNP issues, both in terms of toxicity and patent infringement, and those claims—despite the company’s refusal to release clear supporting evidence—being taken at face value. This is even more striking when one considers the multiple factors that Moderna was facing before COVID-19 and how the company faced collapse without the success of its COVID-19 vaccine, as this means Moderna was under considerable pressure to have its vaccine succeed.

While the controversial simultaneous conducting of animal and human trials was publicly justified in the name of the urgency of the COVID-19 crisis, can the other examples explored in this article be similarly justified in the name of urgency? Instead, several issues explored above appear to have been driven by conflicts of interest and corruption.

Adding to the ridiculousness is that Moderna got away with claiming that the NIH was conducting safety tests on a COVID-19 vaccine product different from their commercial candidate, without causing a major backlash in either the mainstream media or from the NIH itself. This is particularly telling as the May 2020 press release and suspiciously timed stock trading by Moderna executives and insiders did garner negative press attention. However, the subsequent revelation, per Moderna, that its press release was based on the study of a vaccine candidate that was not “necessarily the same” as their commercial COVID-19 vaccine candidate received essentially no coverage, despite raising the unsettling possibility that Moderna could have used another product to essentially rig preliminary data to be positive in order to advance their product to market and make millions through insider stock sales. How can the claims made by such a company be trusted at face value without independent verification? Furthermore, how can NIH studies of Moderna be trusted when Moderna has claimed that some of the studies that were ultimately factors in the vaccine’s emergency use authorization approval by the FDA utilized a different product than that which Moderna later successfully commercialized?

Moderna and the NIH were, nevertheless, taken at their word in November 2020 when they said that their COVID-19 vaccine candidate was 94.5 percent effective. At the time, the main promoters of this claim were Moderna’s Bancel and NIAID’s Fauci. The claim came shortly after Pfizer’s press release claiming its COVID-19 vaccine candidate was 90 percent effective. Not to be outdone by Moderna, Pfizer revised the reported efficacy of its vaccine just two days after Moderna’s November press release, stating that their vaccine was actually 95% effective to Moderna’s 94.5%. In the case of these claims, it was indicative of the now-established yet troubling practice of “science by press release” when it comes to touting the benefit of certain COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market. Since then, real-world data has shattered the efficacy claims that were used to secure emergency use authorization, for which Moderna applied at the end of November 2020 and received only a few weeks later in mid-December of that year.

As Part III of this series will explore, the EUA for the Moderna vaccine got around the issues raised in this article by treating the entire Moderna formulation as a traditional vaccine, which it is not, as traditional vaccines do not utilize mRNA for inducing immunity, and their safety and efficacy depend on several criteria that are entirely different from those of the more novel mRNA. Thus, the LNP issue, a perpetually sticky one for Moderna that it struggled to circumvent before the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, was largely evaded when it came down to, not just research and development, but receiving EUA. It appears that this sleight-of-hand by federal regulators was necessary for Moderna, after ten years, to finally get its first product on the market. As noted in Part I, were it not for the COVID-19 crisis and its fortuitous timing, Moderna might not have survived the severe challenges that threatened its entire existence as a company.

Part III will also examine how Moderna’s “Hail Mary” moment in the COVID-19 crisis was only the beginning of its miraculous rescue from a Theranos-like fate, as the company has not only expanded its partnership with the government but now with a CIA-linked firm. This shows that Moderna and key power players in Big Pharma and the US national-security state envision Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine being sold in massive quantities for several years to come. As previously noted, without annual or semiannual sales of booster doses, Moderna’s pre-COVID crisis will inevitably return. The push for Moderna booster-dose approval has advanced despite real-world data not supporting Moderna’s past claims of safety and efficacy for its COVID-19 vaccine, the recent decision of several European governments to halt the vaccine’s use, and the FDA’s own infighting and recent admissions that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is one of the more dangerous currently in use, particularly in terms of adverse effects on the cardiovascular system. The obvious question here then becomes – How costly will Moderna’s “Hail Mary” save ultimately be, not just in terms of the $6 billion US taxpayer money already spent on it, but also in terms of public health?

November 24, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Did Klaus Schwab Create an Army of Davos ‘Yes Men’ to Facilitate His Great Reset?

By Robert Bridge | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 19, 2021

At a time when the world is being overwhelmed with an array of perplexing problems, the political leadership necessary for solving them is coming up short everywhere. Is this perceived shortage of talent on the global stage a mere coincidence, or is it by design?

For 40 years, Klaus Schwab, the German economist and engineer, has played host to the World Economic Forum in the picturesque town of Davos, Switzerland, a venue that the WEF itself describes as “sufficiently removed to foster among participants a feeling of seclusion and camaraderie.” It is amid that comfortable setting that the global elite are seeing through their plans without much transparency in the process. It’s probably safe to say that the financial elite deciding the fate of the planet at an isolated Swiss ski resort is probably not what the Ancient Greeks had in mind when they theorized about democracy and ‘rule of the people.’

Yet that is exactly what we’ve come to inherit from this exclusive Forum, which fervently believes that global affairs are best managed by an unelected assembly of corporations and technocrats that exert unprecedented power over governments and civil society. And now, thanks to the totally, 100% completely unexpected visitation to planet Earth by a virus of uncertain origins, the elite have been blessed with “a rare but narrow window of opportunity,” according to Schwab, to “reset our world” through a grand initiative known as the Great Reset, which can be summed up in six words: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”

With such a downsized future ahead of us, the one question that seems to have escaped the world’s divided attention is: how is it remotely possible that one individual has managed to concentrate so much unwieldy power into his hands? The short answer is that it was probably no accident.

The young Schwab studied at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government (1966-67), where he earned a Master of Public Administration degree. During his stay, he developed friendships with a number of luminaries, including the macroeconomist Dean Baker, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and the great godfather of RealPolitik, Henry Kissinger. Schwab’s relationship with Kissinger, the trigger-happy Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations, was more than casual. Schwab described it as a “50-year-long mentorship” that continues paying dividends to this day.

As the quaint story goes, in February 1971 the 32-year-old Schwab somehow managed to organize the first ‘European Management Symposium’ in Davos, which would change its name in 1987 to the World Economic Forum. That first meeting managed to attract over 400 corporate executives from 31 nations, an astonishing feat even for an ambitious young man like Schwab. In fact, the native of Ravensburg, Germany may have been less directly involved in the formation of the group than is typically believed.

As the journalist Ernst Wolff explains, “the Harvard Business School had been in the process of planning a management forum of their own, and it is possible that Harvard ended up delegating the task of organizing it to him.” Incidentally, 1971 was the very same year that President Richard Nixon enacted a plan that ended dollar convertibility to gold, a move that soon brought an end to the Bretton Woods System.

Now that Klaus Schwab and the WEC have drafted up the blueprints for their highly coveted technocratic state, there remains one crucial key, and that is making sure leaders sympathetic to the message are in positions of power to see it through.

Welcome to Schwab’s ‘Young Global Leaders’

In 1992, Schwab and the WEC established the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school, which went on to become Young Global Leaders in 2004. The Who Who’s list of past members of this “most exclusive private social network in the world,” as Bloomberg described it, suggests that Davos Man was fishing for a very particular type of future leader.

Included among the alumni of this elite grooming factory are former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and California Governor Gavin Newsom. Aside from Blair, who hailed from an earlier, more muscular period of U.S.-dominated history that focused heavily on the ‘war on terror,’ the two common features that unite these politicians is their strong liberal tendencies and draconian approach to the coronavirus pandemic.

Last month, Jacinda Ardern, for example, without the slightest hint of regret, smiled as she said that New Zealand was on its way to becoming a “two-tier society,” divided between those who choose to get the Covid vaccine and those who do not. Currently, residents must scan into stores using a QR code, which isn’t tied to a person’s vaccine status, but rather used for ‘contact tracing.’ Eventually, the Ardern government plans to implement vaccine passports and all of the delightful chaos that will inevitably incur.

In France, another graduate from the Young Global Leaders (YGL), French President Emmanuel Macron, has made it mandatory that visitors to cultural venues, like museums and theaters present a so-called ‘green pass’ to gain entry. Thus far, however, public resistance is stalling any future efforts at preventing the unvaccinated from shopping at the large retail outlets.

“There are protests all the time,” said Peter Kellow, a correspondent from London now residing in Toulouse. “I can use all the shops now. They tried making hypermarkets illegal for the non-vaxxed but backed down.”

“I expect the big companies were losing too much business,” he added.

Meanwhile, across the pond, in the United States, California Governor Gavin Newsom (Class of 2005), after mandating first-in-the-nation school masking and staff vaccination protocols, now wants to enforce vaccinations on children as young as five years old. Protesters gathered at the State Capitol in Sacramento this week in an effort to prevent the mandate from passing. Organizers of the rally emphasized they are not against vaccines, but simply want to have a democratic say in the matter.

A striking thing about the global leaders who passed through Schwab’s tutelage is their relative lack of any special achievements before rising to power. As Wolff further explains in an interview with the RAIR Foundation, “the thing that the Global Leaders graduates have in common is that most of them have very sparse CVs apart from their participation in the program prior to being elevated to positions of power…” Wolff goes on to surmise that this may demonstrate that it is “their connection to Schwab’s institutions that is the decisive factor in launching their careers.”

As shocking as it may be that so many like-minded politicians did an apprenticeship under the direction of Klaus Schwab, that twist of fate pales in comparison with the news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates also fell under the sway of YGL (Class of 2003). Perhaps more than any other person, Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and despite having no medical training whatsoever, has been a staunch proponent of Covid-19 vaccines. The problem here is not the vaccines per se, but rather the massive conflict of interest for the parties involved.

Here we have the secretive World Economic Forum not only grooming young overachievers who go on to advocate on behalf of Mr. Schwab and his technocratic vision for the future (i.e. the Great Reset), but also the business leaders who will profit handsomely from the great global transition, which the pandemic has made possible.

Take, for example, Jeff Bezos, yet another alumnus of YGL. Mr. Bezos saw his personal wealth explode exponentially as small businesses, many of which will never rise from the ashes, were forced to close their doors at the peak of pandemic. Millions of consumers, forced to ‘shelter in place,’ did the only thing possible, which was to flock to online stores, like Amazon.

Again, it is the glaring conflict of interest that makes the story of Klaus Schwab, the WEF and these fine, young protégés, who are perfectly placed at just the right moment in Schwab time, not a little disturbing. Not only did the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security anticipate with astonishing accuracy the outbreak of a pandemic just two months before it happened with a security exercise dubbed ‘Event 201,’ the predicted health emergency allowed for Schwab’s long sought-after “better world” that he discussed with such enthusiasm in his book, ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset.’

“At the time of writing (June 2020), the pandemic continues to worsen globally,” Schwab writes, once again, with amazing foresight, especially considering the pandemic was just six months old. “Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never. Nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.”

“Some analysts call it a major bifurcation, others refer to a deep crisis of “biblical” proportions,” he continues, “but the essence remains the same: the world as we knew it in the early months of 2020 is no more, dissolved in the context of the pandemic.”

Few other men have had the pleasure of watching their life dream – and a bold one at that – play out in real time as Klaus Schwab has. Indeed, the 83-year-old may just live to see his Great Reset come to fruition in his own lifetime. How much of that was the result of intense planning and preparation, or a random roll of the dice is anybody’s guess, but it may be wise to heed Franklin D. Roosevelt’s keen observation that “in politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

November 22, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates Gave $319 Million to Major Media Outlets, Documents Reveal

By Alan Macleod | MintPress News | November 15, 2021

Up until his recent messy divorce, Bill Gates enjoyed something of a free pass in corporate media. Generally presented as a kindly nerd who wants to save the world, the Microsoft co-founder was even unironically christened “Saint Bill” by The Guardian.

While other billionaires’ media empires are relatively well known, the extent to which Gates’s cash underwrites the modern media landscape is not. After sorting through over 30,000 individual grants, MintPress can reveal that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has made over $300 million worth of donations to fund media projects.

Recipients of this cash include many of America’s most important news outlets, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic.

Gates also sponsors a myriad of influential foreign organizations, including the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph in the UK; prominent European newspapers such as Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain); as well as big global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.

The Gates Foundation money going towards media programs has been split up into a number of sections, presented in descending numerical order, and includes a link to the relevant grant on the organization’s website.

Awards Directly to Media Outlets:

Together, these donations total $166,216,526. The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gates’ 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 “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.

The Gates Foundation has also given nearly $63 million to charities closely aligned with big media outlets, including nearly $53 million to BBC Media Action, over $9 million to MTV’s Staying Alive Foundation and $1 million to The New York Times Neediest Causes Fund.

While not specifically funding journalism, donations to the philanthropic arm of a media player should still be noted.

Gates continues to underwrite a wide network of investigative journalism centers as well, totaling just over $38 million, more than half of which has gone to the D.C.-based International Center for Journalists to expand and develop African media.

These centers include:

  • International Center for Journalists — $20,436,938.
  • Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) — $3,800,357.
  • The Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting — $2,432,552.
  • 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.
  • The Bureau of Investigative Journalism — $1,068,169.
  • Internews Network — $985,126.
  • Communications Consortium Media Center — $858,000.
  • Institute for Nonprofit News — $650,021.
  • The Poynter Institute for Media Studies — $382,997.
  • Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) — $360,211.
  • Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies — $254,500.
  • Global Forum for Media Development (Belgium) — $124,823.
  • Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting — $100,000.

In addition to this, the Gates Foundation also plies press and journalism associations with cash, to the tune of at least $12 million. For example, the National Newspaper Publishers Association — a group representing more than 200 outlets — has received $3.2 million.

The list of these organizations includes:

  • Education Writers Association — $5,938,475.
  • National Newspaper Publishers Association —$3,249,176.
  • National Press Foundation — $1,916,172.
  • Washington News Council — $698,200.
  • American Society of News Editors Foundation — $250,000.
  • Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — $25,000.

This brings our running total up to $216.4 million.

The foundation also puts up the money to directly train journalists all over the world, in the form of scholarships, courses and workshops.

Today, it is possible for an individual to train as a reporter thanks to a Gates Foundation grant, find work at a Gates-funded outlet, and to belong to a press association funded by Gates.

This is especially true of journalists working in the fields of health, education and global development, the ones Gates himself is most active in and where scrutiny of the billionaire’s actions and motives are most necessary.

Gates Foundation grants pertaining to the instruction of journalists include:

  • Johns Hopkins University — $1,866,408.
  • Teachers College, Columbia University — $1,462,500.
  • University of California Berkeley — $767,800.
  • Tsinghua University (China) — $450,000.
  • Seattle University — $414,524.
  • Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies — $254,500.
  • Rhodes University (South Africa) — $189,000.
  • Montclair State University —$160,538.
  • Pan-Atlantic University Foundation — $130,718.
  • World Health Organization — $38,403.
  • The Aftermath Project — $15,435.

The BMGF also pays for a wide range of specific media campaigns around the world. For example, since 2014 it has donated $5.7 million to the Population Foundation of India in order to create dramas that promote sexual and reproductive health, with the intent to increase family planning methods in South Asia.

Meanwhile, it alloted over $3.5 million to a Senegalese organization to develop radio shows and online content that would feature health information.

Supporters consider this to be helping critically underfunded media, while opponents might consider it a case of a billionaire using his money to plant his ideas and opinions into the press.

Media projects supported by the Gates Foundation:

Total: $97,315,408

$319.4 million and (a lot) more

Added together, these Gates-sponsored media projects come to a total of $319.4 million.

However, there are clear shortcomings with this non-exhaustive list, meaning the true figure is undoubtedly far higher. First, it does not count sub-grants — money given by recipients to media around the world.

And while the Gates Foundation fosters an air of openness about itself, there is actually precious little public information about what happens to the money from each grant, save for a short, one- or two-sentence description written by the foundation itself on its website.

Only donations to press organizations themselves or projects that could be identified from the information on the Gates Foundation’s website as media campaigns were counted, meaning that thousands of grants having some media element do not appear in this list.

A case in point is the BMGF’s partnership with ViacomCBS, the company that controls CBS News, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and BET. Media reports at the time noted that the Gates Foundation was paying the entertainment giant to insert information and PSAs into its programming and that Gates had intervened to change storylines in popular shows like ER and Law & Order: SVU.

However, when checking BMGF’s grants database, “Viacom” and “CBS” are nowhere to be found, the likely grant in question (totaling over $6 million) merely describing the project as a “public engagement campaign aimed at improving high school graduation rates and postsecondary completion rates specifically aimed at parents and students,” meaning that it was not counted in the official total.

There are surely many more examples like this. “For a tax-privileged charity that so very often trumpets the importance of transparency, it’s remarkable how intensely secretive the Gates Foundation is about its financial flows,” Tim Schwab, one of the few investigative journalists who has scrutinized the tech billionaire, told MintPress.

Also not included are grants aimed at producing articles for academic journals. While these articles are not meant for mass consumption, they regularly form the basis for stories in the mainstream press and help shape narratives around key issues.

The Gates Foundation has given far and wide to academic sources, with at least $13.6 million going toward creating content for the prestigious medical journal The Lancet.

And, of course, even money given to universities for purely research projects eventually ends up in academic journals, and ultimately, downstream into mass media. Academics are under heavy pressure to print their results in prestigious journals; “publish or perish” is the mantra in university departments.

Therefore, even these sorts of grants have an effect on our media. Neither these nor grants funding the printing of books or establishment of websites counted in the total, although they too are forms of media.

Low profile, long tentacles

In comparison to other tech billionaires, Gates has kept his profile as a media controller relatively low. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s purchase of The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013 was a very clear and obvious form of media influence, as was eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s creation of First Look Media, the company that owns The Intercept.

Despite flying more under the radar, Gates and his companies have amassed considerable influence in media.

We already rely on Microsoft-owned products for communication (e.g., Skype, Hotmail), social media (LinkedIn), and entertainment (Microsoft XBox). Furthermore, the hardware and software we use to communicate often comes courtesy of the 66-year-old Seattleite.

How many people reading this are doing so on a Microsoft Surface or Windows phone and doing so via Windows OS? Not only that, Microsoft owns stakes in media giants such as Comcast and AT&T. And the “MS” in MSNBC stands for Microsoft.

Media Gates keepers

That the Gates Foundation is underwriting a significant chunk of our media ecosystem leads to serious problems with objectivity. “The foundation’s grants to media organizations … raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?” wrote Gates’s local Seattle Times in 2011.

This was before the newspaper accepted BMGF money to fund its “education lab” section.

Schwab’s research has found that this conflict of interests goes right to the very top: two New York Times columnists had been writing glowingly about the Gates Foundation for years without disclosing that they also work for a group — the Solutions Journalism Network — that, as shown above, has received over $7 million from the tech billionaire’s charity.

Earlier this year, Schwab also declined to co-report on a story about COVAX for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, suspecting that the money Gates had been pumping into the outlet would make it impossible to accurately report on a subject so close to Gates’s heart.

Sure enough, when the article was published last month, it repeated the assertion that Gates had little to do with COVAX’s failure, mirroring the BMGF’s stance and quoting them throughout. Only at the very end of the more than 5,000-word story did it reveal that the organization it was defending was paying the wages of its staff.

“I don’t believe Gates told The Bureau of Investigative Journalism what to write. I think the bureau implicitly, if subconsciously, knew they had to find a way to tell this story that didn’t target their funder.

The biasing effects of financial conflicts are complex but very real and reliable,” Schwab said, describing it as “a case study in the perils of Gates-funded journalism.”

MintPress also contacted the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for comment, but it did not respond. … Full article

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

Video emerges where Fauci and others plan for a “Universal mRNA Flu Vaccine” which became the “COVID-19 Vaccine”

Because People were not Afraid Enough of the Flu Virus

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | October 5, 2021

Last night Alex Jones of Infowars.com did a special broadcast regarding an October, 2019 video that they had just become aware of that was a panel discussion hosted by the Milken Institute discussing the need for a Universal Flu Vaccine.

The video clip that they played of this event was a 1 minute and 51 second dialogue between the moderator, Michael Specter, a journalist who is a New Yorker staff writer and also an adjunct professor of bioengineering at Stanford University, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and Rick Bright, the director of HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

In this short clip, which was extracted from the hour long panel discussion, Anthony Fauci explains that bringing a new, untested kind of vaccine like an mRNA vaccine, would take at least a decade (“if everything goes perfectly”) to go through proper trials and be approved by the FDA.

He would know, because he had been trying to do it for about a decade already by then (October, 2019), trying to develop an mRNA based vaccine for HIV.

But now they were discussing something much bigger than just a vaccine for AIDS patients. They are talking about a “Universal Flu Vaccine” that everyone would have to take – a huge market for Big Pharma!

Rick Bright, the director of HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), then speaks and states that what could happen is that “an entity of excitement that is completely disruptive and is not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes” could change that.

Here is the short clip which I put on our Bitchute and Rumble channels last night:

Alex Jones spent over 50 minutes covering this on his show last night, and it looks like he covered it on his show today as well.

I have not had a chance to watch these yet, as I went and found the original 1 hour panel discussion video, and spent the day listening to and analyzing that, so that I could supply this report to our readers.

Joining Fauci, Rick Bright, and Michael Specter at this event were:

  • Margaret Hamburg, Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Medicine
  • Bruce Gellin, President, Global Immunization, Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • Casey Wright, CEO, FluLab

In short, this panel discussion focused on what they perceived as the need for a universal flu vaccine, but they admitted that the old way of producing vaccines was not sufficient for their purposes, and that they needed some kind of global event where many people were dying to be able to roll out a new mRNA vaccine to be tested on the public.

They all agreed that the annual flu virus was not scary enough to create an event that would convince people to get a universal vaccine.

And as we now know today, about 2 years after this event, that “terrifying virus” that was introduced was the COVID-19 Sars virus.

And so now we know why the flu just “disappeared” in the 2020-21 flu season. It was simply replaced by COVID-19, in a worldwide cleverly planned “pandemic” to roll out the world’s first universal mRNA vaccines.

This was always the goal, and previous efforts through various influenzas, AIDS, Ebola, and other “viruses” were all unsuccessful in leading to the development of a universal vaccine to inject into the entire world’s population.

Margaret Hamburg stated regarding getting a “Universal Vaccine” into the market:

“It’s time to stop talking, and it’s time to act.”

“I think it is also because we haven’t had a sense of urgency.”

Michael Specter asks:

“Do we need lots of people to die for that sense of urgency to occur?”

Hamburg replies that: “There are already lots of people dying” from the flu each year.

Bruce Gellin states that basically people just are not afraid enough of the term “the flu.”

There are so many things that are revealed about how Big Pharma and government health authorities think in this panel discussion. For example, they bemoan the fact that if they do too good of a job in public health, then they lose funding to develop products that fight viruses.

Michael Specter states: “It seems to me that one of the curses of the public health world is, if you guys do your job well, everyone goes along well and healthy.”

Hamburg: “And they cut your funding.”

Rick Bright complains that the yearly distribution of flu vaccines is inefficient in terms of collecting data, and in the process actually admits that some vaccines just don’t work well:

“We distribute 150 million doses of the seasonal (flu) vaccines every year, we don’t even know how many people are being vaccinated from the doses that are delivered to the people, which doses they got, and what the real outcome was, so that we can learn from that knowledge base on how to optimize or improve our vaccine. So there are opportunities that we have today…”

I think if we uncloaked the poorest performing vaccines in the market place today, it might be very revealing to tell us which of the technologies we have, and allow us to go deeper into those technologies to determine why they are more effective. There are vaccines licenses today that are more effective. I think that we’re just afraid to admit the truth.”

So much for the public mantra that is espoused by Big Pharma and government that the “science” of vaccines is “settled,” and that they are completely “safe and effective.”

Casey Wright repeats the mantra that was publicized every year, before COVID, about just how deadly the flu virus was: “650,000 people die every year from the flu.”

As we have documented many times over the past decade here at Health Impact News, this is simply not true. This is an estimate because actual laboratory confirmed cases of influenza each year are very small, probably less than 1000 in the U.S.

Most flu-like symptoms are never tested in a lab to determine what is causing the symptoms. They were always just classified as “flu” to inflate the numbers to justify the very profitable flu shot each year. Some of our previous coverage of this issue:

CDC Inflates Flu Death Stats to Sell More Flu Vaccines

Did 80,000 People Really Die from the Flu Last Year? Inflating Flu Death Estimates to Sell Flu Shots

So as they have inflated the COVID-19 cases since last year, they are simply continuing their policy of inflating flu numbers each year in order to sell their vaccines. They obviously could not have done both last year, as the public would have quickly seen that the math doesn’t work.

And yet, so many in the public bought the lie that the COVID-19 measures got rid of the flu, but not COVID-19.

Ultimately, this panel discussion can be boiled down to: Nobody wants to fund research for a universal flu vaccine. So how do we change that? Create a pandemic of fear over the flu (but they couldn’t call it the “flu” because people are no longer afraid of influenza, and the fear over “AIDS” had also subsided.)

Fauci then addressed this “perception problem.”

There’s this perception (about the flu), if it’s so serious, how come people get the flu each year and it isn’t a catastrophe?

When you’re dealing with a disease like HIV, if you get HIV, it’s serious. Whether you’re young, whether you’re middle aged, or whether you’re old. If you get cancer, that’s bad. Whether you’re young, whether it’s intermediate… whereas if it’s influenza, some people, they go throughout life and it doesn’t impact them at all.

There isn’t anyone who is afraid of influenza. You go into a focus group and you say: Are you afraid of getting HIV if you’re at risk? Oh, absolutely.

Are you afraid of getting cancer? Absolutely. Are you afraid of the flu? Don’t bother me.

That’s the reality of how people perceive flu.

And it is going to be very difficult to change that, unless you do it from within and say, I don’t care what your perception is, we’re going to address the problem, in a disruptive way…

Specter then asks:

In the long run, over time, if the 2009 pandemic had been much more deadly, would that have ended up being a better thing for humanity?

Everyone is silent as they obviously were thinking about how to answer that, and Specter says: “Come on gang.”

Fauci ultimately answers and says “No” because there were other years that were worse than 2009 and it didn’t change a thing in terms of creating a universal vaccine.

Hamburg then states:

The sad truth is that when there is a major crisis, it focuses attention and usually resources and some significant mobilization follows.

We need, #1, this time to be different, and we also need to really organize ourselves in a way where there will be accountability for sustained action, and not just response.

Specter states:

Craig Venter, who is a controversial person, but interesting to me, has written that he thinks we ought to have a vaccine, such that, if you take off in a plane from Hong Kong, and are infected, by the time your plane lands in New York, there ought to be a vaccine assembled and deliverable to you.

How crazy is that? How far are we from that? Are we ever going to get there?

Bright replies:

I’m not going to say how far away, but I don’t think that’s too crazy.

I think that if we move towards the era of synthetic-based vaccines, I think we remove the dependencies of thinking the vaccine that has be grown into something else, an egg, a cell, or insect cell – any type of dependency embryo.

If we can move into more synthetic, the nucleic acid based, messenger RNA based, those sequences can be rapidly shared around the world.

He then goes on to talk about using a 3D printer to print out a “vaccine patch” that people use to administer the “vaccine.”

We also learn in this panel discussion why Anthony Fauci is so opposed to natural immunity, because natural immunity for influenza, according to his view, translates to an immune response against other strains of a particular influenza virus, which will interfere with what they are trying to do with the vaccines.

That is why he wants to inject infants as young as 6 months old with a universal vaccine, as he states here, to prevent that “confused” natural immunity from happening before the child grows older.

So the big question that this panel was tackling, was how do they implement their strategies, and what is holding them back?

Certainly the government/regulatory issue is a big one, and now two years later we can see exactly how they did that, by controlling the FDA and the CDC to promote the “killer virus pandemic” narrative as long as possible to justify taking emergency measures that short-cut the normal procedures for bringing novel, new drugs to the market.

It also clearly explains the vicious opposition to existing, cheap therapeutics that very easily treated what is really just the seasonal flu “virus,” which stood in their way of rolling out a universal vaccine.

Casey Wright then made a rather remarkable comment about “philanthropy” and its role in this effort:

There’s a potential role for philanthropy to play there… we are in a position to take on a little more risk (she smiles eerily as she says this), to be open to a little bit more experimentation and methods in how we do things. That’s what I think is unique about FluLab, and its unique about other philanthropies.

I think they can play a really important role there, and fund a set of bolder, maybe earlier promising concepts.

Bingo! Think Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and other “philanthropies” that are “unburdened” by regulatory issues as they spend their money pretty much unchecked, with no accountability, all in the name of “science” and the “greater good.”

We have seen most certainly how the Gates Foundation has done this in India by luring poor people into highly questionable ethical experimentations with vaccines, such as the Gardasil vaccine which we have covered so often over the years here at Health Impact News.

Bruce Gellin then talks about a report published by his organization that called for an “entity” that would make these decisions and bring everyone together to collaborate to create this universal vaccine, and eliminate those who oppose.

The report was published in 2019, and here is the press release.

He states:

They called for this “entity” which is the collaboration we talked about. They called for the need to infuse innovation, to find some of these people who we don’t know might be part of the problem to come into this. And to try to think about how we talk about this differently so that your stomach flu doesn’t keep us from making progress. (everyone laughs…)

I assume that this “entity” is Gellin’s group, The Sabin-Aspen Vaccine Science & Policy Group.

Today, this is the main group fighting “vaccine hesitancy” and trying to silence any dissenting voices that get in their way of rolling out this universal vaccine, which of course we now know is the COVID-19 vaccine.

Online Misinformation about Vaccines

Watch the entire panel discussion to learn just how arrogant these people are. This is on our Bitchute and Rumble channels… Further analysis at Health Impact News.

October 5, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

India’s Covid-19 Task Force & “Experts” Exposed : Conflicts of Interest in Public Health System

By Yohan Tengra | Awaken India Movement | September 27, 2021

Introduction

Who is India’s Anthony Fauci? The mainstream media does not even know the names of the members who sit in India’s National task force, but in this article I, Yohan Tengra, have exposed not just the names of those who are sitting in this task force, but also how they are financially connected to the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine mafia.

This task force has been responsible for the aggressive push to lockdown, mandatory mask requirements, forced testing of asymptomatics, dropping ivermectin and hcq from the national protocol, suppressing vaccine adverse events, and a lot more!

Along with the task force, I have also exposed how India’s prominent public health personalities, who regularly appear in the media and TV, like Srinath Reddy, NK Arora, VK Paul, Gagandeep Kang, Vijayraghavan, Balram Bhargava, Randeep Guleria, are connected to the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Wellcome Trust, USAID, the World Bank, and other aspects of the global deep state.

Other topics covered in this piece :
– How task force members get the science on Covid-19 totally wrong, which proves that their conflicts influence their recommendations
– India’s illegal HPV vaccine trials, ICMRs role in it, and how a similar incident repeated with the Covaxin Phase 3 trials
– How Gates foundations baby PHFI gets funding from the vaccine mafia, and holds deep influence in controlling India’s health policies
– How this research is the basis on which a legal notice has been sent to the Health Minister, calling for prosecution and removal of all the people who are exposed to have conflicts of interest
– When the accused have been confronted about conflicts of interest in the past, how have they responded?
– How the accused have lied on record about not having conflicts of interest

This piece is the culmination of my research into India’s medical deep state that I’ve been conducting since the last 2 years. Journalists reading this, who regularly bring these cast of characters on to discuss the medical aspects of the covid-19 pandemic must confront them with hard questions and facts which are explored in this article.

Disclaimer

If you are new to the arena of researching global conspiracies, and don’t understand what the New World Order/Great Reset/ Agenda 2030 Sustainable development really is, and/or don’t understand the players/forces behind it and how they work, I’d recommend you first view/read the material I’ve posted below, before proceeding with the article, so that you can get full value out of it.

1) Documentary series & articles exposing Bill Gates and his role in hijacking the public health system, among other areas: https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/

https://www.coreysdigs.com/downloads/the-gates-of-hell-remove-the-gatekeeper-and-seal-the-doors-bookshop/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/foundations-investments-influence-covid-research/

http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/culture/gates.html

2) Bill Gates’ Influence & Activities in India

https://www.rupe-india.org/57/primer.html

https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/bill-gates-history-of-vaccine-corruption-inflicting-harm-and-death-on-unsuspecting-people-in-poor-countries/

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/comment/dangers-of-keeping-the-gates-wide-open-871226

https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/why-are-indians-so-angry-at-bill-gates/

2) Documentary series which explores the forces behind the New World Order (like the Rockefellers which you will see referenced below a lot), their eugenics origins and agenda of wanting to reduce the number of “inferior” people in the world, Agenda 2030 Sustainable development, the Climate Change Scam, and other related subjects : https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/

3) Exposing the role of organizations like USAID in advancing the globalist agenda – https://www.corbettreport.com/beware-americans-bearing-gifts-ngos-as-trojan-horses/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGqdo9jHllc

4) Real role and purpose of the World Bank – https://www.corbettreport.com/so-what-does-the-world-bank-do-exactly/

5) Wellcome Trust Exposed – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/foundations-investments-influence-covid-research/

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/12/investigative-series/developers-of-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-tied-to-uk-eugenics-movement/

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/06/investigative-reports/a-leap-toward-humanitys-destruction/

6) The Global Fund for AIDS, TB & Malaria Exposed – https://www.coreysdigs.com/downloads/is-u-s-aids-90b-taxpayer-dollars-a-global-slush-fund-chpt-2-the-global-fund-bookshop/

7) How India’s billionaires (who will be referenced below) are connected to the global deep state – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1YuQZ0CTWk (Hindi)

8) Agenda 21/2030 explained in an Indian context – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QO6dyBIlSU (English)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ-wtKm04DU&t=1530s (Hindi)

9) How the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, Ford Foundation, and others were behind pushing covert eugenics operations in India, in the name of family planning and population control – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlPAL7sHU8w

http://web.archive.org/web/20210405194848/https://www.liberationnews.org/real-agenda-gates-foundation/

10) How all major political parties in India are connected to the global deep state – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBPUv7j8gKU&t=468s

Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI)

Former PM Manmohan Singh with the Founding Chairperson of PHFI, Rajat Gupta

PHFI, a public private partnership started by Ex Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Rajat Gupta, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation & Srinath Reddy, has received millions of dollars of funding from pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, & dubious philanthropic organizations, which use philanthropy as a front to push hidden agendas which profit vested interests. It was started with initial funding of 65cr given by the Gates Foundation, and 65cr given by the Indian Government, along with a later grant of 35 crores.

This so called PPP has received funding over the years from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank, PATH, Diamond Jubilee Trust of the Queen of England, USAID, Wellcome Trust, Abbott, Mckinsey, Eli Lily, Glaxosmithkline, Bayer, NIH, & Google!

https://phfi.org/about/financial-information/

Check under “Intimation of Quarterly Receipt of Foreign Contributions” Section

Despite receiving nearly 100 crores from taxpayer money, & having top government bureaucrats sitting on the PHFI governing board, PHFI did not submit itself to the RTI Act, 2005 for the first 6 years of its existence. When it was taken up to the Central Information Commission by a person named Kishan Lal in 2012, the CIC Chief Shailesh Gandhi ruled that it was a public authority under the RTI Act, and hence it must submit itself to the RTI act.

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2011_001273_17356_M_76524.pdf

When Journalist Kapil Bajaj filed an RTI to know the composition of the PHFI board when it was created (2006), the President of PHFI, Srinath Reddy, actually sent him an evidently forged document, which is a punishable offense under the RTI Act. The document is dated 2006, but the designations of some of the members on the board are clearly written many years after 2006. You can find a copy of this document here :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bRHsJbkS4XwEifnMiYtvDBZ4IBBJSC8a/view?usp=sharing

In the year 2013-2014, PHFI lost 82 crores to a bank FD scam, which included the taxpayer money it received from the Government of India, and the organization also found itself ensnared in another controversy when a complaint was made against it to the CBI for lobbying and conflict of interest in getting one of its courses accredited from Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute. Despite having lost so much of our taxpayer money, it has still not submitted itself to a CAG audit, and did not take action against those under whos watch the funds were embezzled.

A summary of this can be found in an article written by journalist Kapil Bajaj here – https://dragada.com/kbforyou/2018/02/17/phfis-rs-100-crore-scam-and-ensnaring-of-sree-chitra-tirunal-institute-in-a-corrupt-deal-impostors-club-hurtles-from-fraud-to-fraud-updated/

PHFI has claimed since inception that top Government bureaucrats have sat on its board, including Secretaries of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Director Generals of ICMR, and Director General of Health Services, MOHFW. However, whenever RTI’s have been sent by activists to these Government Departments, they always mention that no permission or order has been issued to allow these government servants to sit on the PHFI board.

It is not clear as to whether Government bureaucrats sitting in the PHFI board are getting paid by PHFI (RTI’s have been filed to uncover this), but the President, Srinath Reddy, who used to work in AIIMS before he became PHFI president, is reportedly drawing in a salary of 1 crore per annum from the PHFI! If it is revealed in the future that Government bureaucrats on the PHFI board are getting salaries from the funders of PHFI (i.e. pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, & fraud philanthropists like Gates, Rockefellers,etc) then that would amount to a serious conflict of interest of such government representatives.

PHFI was mainly created with the motive to start public health universities in India, create a public health cadre in India, and suggest health related policies to the Government. PHFI has created many Indian Institutes of Public Health (IIPH’s) all over the country. Land from many states has been allotted to PHFI and grants from various state governments have also been given, but after PHFI lost so much money to the FD scam, it has not been able to build many of the universities that it was originally supposed to, and a lot of its universities are currently running on rented premises.

Many government members as well as heads of billionaire business houses, fake philanthropic bodies & pharmaceutical companies have sat on the PHFI Governing Body in the past, and some continue to sit on the Governing body of PHFI. Those who are sitting in the PHFI board as of March 2020 have been highlighted below in bold letters. Members who are sitting on the PHFI Governing Body as well as Executive committee for the year ending March 2021 have still not been published on the website, despite many months having passed. List of members is referenced below:

– K Srinath Reddy (President of PHFI since 2006)
– S Ramadorai (Former Vice Chairman ,TCS )
– Mr Lav Agarwal, Joint Secretary of MOHFW
– JVR Prasada Rao (UN Secretary General Special Envoy for AIDS)
– Balram Bhargava (DG – ICMR)
– Prof Dr. Sunil Kumar (DGHS, MOHFW)
– David Fleming (Ex Director of Global Health Strategies at the Gates Foundation)
– Rajat Gupta (Former Partner, Mckinsey & Co., sat on the boards of Gates Foundation & Rockefeller Foundation in the past)
– Dr Sanjay Tyagi (Ex Director General of Health Services, MOHFW)
– Dr. Soumya Swaminathan (Ex Director General, ICMR)
– Prof K Vijayraghavan (Ex Secretary, Department of Biotechnology)
– Prasanna Hota (Ex Secretary MOHFW)
– Nirmal Ganguly (Ex DG, ICMR)
– Ranjit Pandit (Ex Senior Director, Mckinsey)
– K Sujatha Rao (Former Secretary, MOHFW)
– RK Srivastava (Ex DGHS, MOHFW)
– Y Venugopal Reddy (Former Governor of RBI)
– Vishwa Katoch (Ex Director General ICMR)
– TKA Nair (Former Advisor to PMO)
– RA Mashelkar (Chairman Reliance Innovation Council, CSIR Chief)
– Rati Godrej (Industrialist)
– Mr KRS Jamwal (Executive Director of TATA Industries)
– Harpal Singh (Fortis)
– Uday Khemka (SUN Group)
– Amartya Sen (Married into the Rothschild Family)
– Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwallia (Former Deputy Chair of Planning Commission)
– Timothy Evans (Ex Director for Health, Nutrition, & Population, World Bank)
– Shiv Nadar (HCL)
– Mr Bhanu Pratap Sharma (Ex Secretary, MOHFW)
– Dr Jagdish Prasad (Ex DGHS, MOHFW)
– Ashok Alexander (Former Director BMGF)
– Narayan Murthy (Infosys, member of Gates’ Giving Pledge)
– Rohini Nilekani (Member of Gates’ Giving Pledge, partner with Gates & Rockefeller Foundation in many projects)
– A K Shivakumar (UNICEF)
– Gary Darmstatd (Ex Director of Gates Foundation)
– Anand Mahindra (Mahindra Group)
– Mukesh Ambani (Reliance)
– Prashant Vasu (Mckinsey)
– David Lynn (Director, Wellcome Trust)
– Mr Gautam Kumra (Director at Mckinsey)
– PK Pradhan (Ex secretary MOHFW)

https://phfi.org/about/financial-information/ – Check Progress Reports Section

Members from PHFI which have been influencing all Covid-19 & Covid-19 vaccine related policies in India

Prof. K Srinath Reddy President, President of PHFI

He continues to provide technical expertise during Covid-19. Prof. Reddy is a member of the following national and international committees:

1) National COVID Technical Taskforce convened by ICMR. https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/rrt/ICMR_COVID_Response_Teams_08072021_v12.pdf

2) Founding Board Member of IHME (Institute of Health Metrics & Evaluation), alongside Tedros Ghebreyesus (IHME – an organization to which the Gates Foundation gave a massive founding grant, and huge subsequent funding) http://www.healthdata.org/about/IHME-founding-board-members

3) Professional Organization Representative in NTAGI https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/MoM%20NTAGI%202020.pdf

4) Honorary Advisor on Health to the Governments of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh with Cabinet Rank in both states.

5) Member of Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network https://www.unsdsn.org/leadership-council

6) Chair/Member of Several WHO Panels

7) Physician to 2 prime ministers of India

– Chaired High Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage, setup by Planning Commission & funded by Rockefeller foundation http://uhc-india.org/reports/executive_summary.pdf)

8) Queen Elizabeth Medal Recipient

9) Part of Post-COVID strategy paper for the health system, by the National Security Council Secretariat.

10) Part of the Executive Group of the Steering Committee of WHOs SOLIDARITY Trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33264556/

11) Member, Group of Experts for COVID-19 Response under the CM of Punjab

12) Technical Expert, Government of Haryana https://phfi.org/member/profksrinathreddy/

13) Speaker at events hosted by Nudge & the Rockefeller Foundation http://www.pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=141833&sid=2

14) Member of Lancet Covid-19 Commission’s India Regional Task Force, who’s founding donor is the Rockefeller Foundation https://covid19commission.org/regional-task-force-india

15) His father was a politician from the Congress Party

  • Subhash Salunke, Director of IIPH Bhubhaneshwar (Indian Institute of Public Health started by PHFI) and Senior Advisor, PHFI

1) Technical COVID Support to Government of Odisha

2) Technical support to Government of Maharashtra

3) The technical team at the Indian Institute of Public Health, Bhubaneswar is assisting efforts of the Government of Odisha

  • Prof Sanjay Zodpey, Director of IIPH Delhi

1) Prof. Sanjay Zodpey, is a part of the National Task Force for COVID-19 at ICMR of the Epidemiology and Surveillance research group.

2) He is the Technical Advisor for COVID-19 related activities for Nagpur Division. He is suggesting appropriate measures to be taken to contain the pandemic in the Division.

3) He is a member of the working group which is working on execution of specific tasks related to population based studies and prophylaxis studies to generate evidences of AYUSH interventions in dealing with the COVID 19 crisis, which will be initiated by Ministry of AYUSH and will be implemented by RCs, academic institutes and other partners in different parts of the country.

  • Prof GVS Murthy, Director of IIPH Hyderabad

1) Technical Support to the Government of Telangana

  • Dr Jayaram, Registrar at IIPH Hyderabad

1) Technical Support to the Government of Telangana. The technical team at the Indian Institute of Public Health, Hyderabad is assisting efforts of the Government of Odisha. The students are activitely engaged and have been recruited as epidemiologists at the district level.

Dr. Dileep Malavankar, Director of IIPH Gujarat

1) The technical team at IIPHG led by Dr Dileep Mavalankar is supporting efforts of the Government of Gujarat.

  • Dr Sandra Albert, Director of IIPH Shillong

1) Member of the Working group on Epidemiology Survey and Documentation constituted by the Interdisciplinary AYUSH Research and Development Task Force on Covid-19. Notification No. A.17020/1/2020-E.1 of Ministry of AYUSH

2) Prof Sandra Albert is a member of the State Level Medical Expert Committee constituted by the Government of Meghalaya

3) Technical team members at IIPH Shillong Dr Rajiv Sarkar, Badondor Shylla and Uniqueky Mawrie are members of the technical support group of the State response team for COVID-19, Government of Meghalaya.

  • Dr Giridhara Babu, Head – Life Course Epidemiology, PHFI, IIPH – Bangalore Campus

1) Member, Lancet Covid -19 Commission India Task Force

2) Member Karnataka State Government State Vision Group

3) Co-Chair, BBMP Task force on COVID-19 Public Health Response, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru.

4) National level: Member of Epidemiology, Surveillance, & Research group constituted by ICMR National Task Force for COVID-I9

5) Member, Karnataka State Government Technial Analysis Committe: COVID19

6) Member, Karnataka State Government Expert Committee for COVID19

7) Member, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Expert Committee for COVID19

8) Consultation to state Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab & Telengana

9) Member of Lancet Covid-19 Commission’s India Regional Task Force, who’s founding donor is the Rockefeller Foundation https://covid19commission.org/regional-task-force-india

  • JVR Prasada Rao

1) Member of National Covid-19 Task Force

2) UN Secretary General Special Envoy for AIDS

3) Ex Governing Board Member of PHFI

Source for all of the above : https://phfi.org/covid19/technical-support-to-central-and-state-governments/

To read up on more controversies and problems that have plagued PHFI, do read the following articles :

– https://www.moneylife.in/article/with-phfi-falsification-is-the-truth/28389.html

– https://www.moneylife.in/article/phfi-more-wool-over-public-eyes-part-2/28401.html

– https://dragada.com/kbforyou/2014/03/24/public-health-fraud-of-india-phfi-heres-why-manmohan-singh-deserves-the-fate-of-his-crony-rajat-gupta/

– https://dragada.com/kbforyou/2018/05/09/phfi-fails-to-respond-to-govt-notice-on-my-complaint-instead-sends-me-legal-notice-for-defamation/

My video with Kapil Bajaj exposing PHFI in great detail :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=412Us3uVnug – English

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA0xfREIsEU&t=1655s – Hindi

Illegal HPV Vaccine Trials – History Repeats?

Many years ago, a parliamentary standing committee in India produced a scathing report regarding illegal trials which were conducted by the NGO PATH, that were funded by the Gates Foundation. There were serious lapses in the trial which amounted to a gross violation of the human rights of the subjects involved.

Back then, it accused the ICMR of gross misconduct and conflict of interest. Here is an excerpt from the report :

“It was unwise on the part of ICMR to go in the PPP mode with PATH, as such an involvement gives rise to grave Conflict of Interest. The Committee takes a serious view of the role of ICMR in the entire episode and is constrained to observe that ICMR should have been more responsible in the matter. The Committee strongly recommends that the Ministry may review the activities of ICMR functionaries involved in PATH project.

The Committee from its examination has found that DHR/ICMR have completely failed to perform their mandated role and responsibility as the apex body for medical research in the Country. Rather, in their over-enthusiasm to act as a willing facilitator to the machinations of PATH they have even transgressed into the domain of other bodies/ agencies which deserves the strongest condemnation and strictest action against them”

http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20Health%20and%20Family%20Welfare/72.pdf

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/hpv-vaccine-deaths-parliament-panel-indicts-path-health-officials-42074

The Supreme Court of India also ruled in 2018 that this parliamentary committee report could be used as evidence in court.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/parliamentary-panel-reports-admissible-in-courts-says-cji-misra-led-bench/story-SsgaGNIOyHK6UxWHPfyfBL.html

Years later, today PATH and the Gates Foundation are still freely operating in the country, and going around funding various public and private projects. No action was taken against the ICMR employees who got into a PPP with PATH, as recommended by the standing committee.

What the standing committee failed to notice at the time is that the ICMR and other Government departments, got into a so called PPP with the pharmaceutical companies, industrialists & fraudulent philanthropic organizations that use philanthrophy as a front to push their hidden agendas. This arrangement is known as PHFI.

Back then, the conflict of interest of ICMR was only limited to the trials that were being conducted. Today, the conflict of interest of the ICMR is enormous, as ICMR Director Balaram Bhargava, and past Directors such as Soumya Swaminathan and Vishwa Mohan Katoch sat on the board of PHFI along with leaders from pharmaceutical companies, the Gates Foundation, industrialists, etc. On behalf of these vested interests, the ICMR is controlling the entire response to the Covid-19 pandemic today, as it setup the task force which directly recommends the Central Government about what measures to take in response to the pandemic.

This issue has come up in the past as well, and was reported in the Indian mainstream media. You can read up on that here :

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/controversial-vaccine-studies-why-is-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-under-fire-from-critics-in-india/articleshow/41280050.cms?from=mdr

The ICMR also got into a deal with Bharat Biotech, and gets 5% royalty on the sale of the vaccine. The ICMR has inked other deals along with the Gates Foundation as well. These conflicts of interest need to be cut-off, as they are not just influencing the outcome of a clinical trial, but the fine detail of all 135 crore peoples lives today! ICMR guidelines are followed like a religious book all over our country today.

Years later, it seems like history repeats! This time with the phase 3 trial of Covaxin in Bhopal.

Multiple news reports have also highlighted the irregularities in the clinical trial phase of the Covaxin in India, particularly in Bhopal. In an article titled “India’s COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants Claim They Were Misled” published on an online portal IndiaSpend
on 12.02.2021, it is reported that individuals were lured to participate in the trial after paying Rs. 750. Death of one person who took the vaccine was also reported. The persons who took the vaccine said that they were not informed that they were part of the clinical trial. The report states asunder:

“A truck came to this locality in December and announced
on a loudspeaker that anyone who wanted the COVID-19
vaccine and wanted Rs 750 for taking the vaccine, could
go to the nearby People’s University Hospital and take it.
I needed the money,” said Parihar. Nearly a dozen people
interviewed by IndiaSpend in Gareeb Nagar and Oriya
Basti in north Bhopal recounted this same sequence of
events.”

“After reports of irregularities in the trials, this reporter
visited Bhopal to investigate the allegations made by
people living in low-income areas of the city. Many said
they did not know they were part of a clinical trial and
instead believed they had been given the actual COVID-
19 vaccine. For most, the money was the reason they had
agreed to take the jab. Many of them said they were
illiterate and could not read the forms they had signed.
Residents also alleged that they had not been informed
about the potential side-effects, or that they could be
compensated for serious fallouts such as death or
disability. Although Bharat Biotech has issued a press
statement claiming that all reported adverse events have
been duly recorded, many in the trial did not have mobile
phones on which their health conditions could be inquired
about. They said they had not been contacted by any
other means, either.”

https://www.indiaspend.com/covid-19/indias-covid-19-vaccine-trial-participants-claim-they-were-misled-713061

It seems like ICMR has a habit of working with parties that love to break the rules of clinical trials in India and hence violate the rights of the participants who are involved. The parliamentary committee called for strict action against ICMR more than a decade ago, and since no action was taken then, this incident has repeated today. When will justice be served?

Famous Names in India’s Public Health Space

There are other people who are not directly working for PHFI, and don’t sit in the main ICMR Covid-19 task force either, but are influencing Government policies & media messaging on Covid 19 in a big way, and are connected to Bill Gates, Rockefeller Foundation, vaccine & pharmaceutical companies, etc. These include :

1) Dr. Narendra Kumar Arora

– Teaching Faculty at PHFI since 2014

– Member of National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization

– Chairperson, Operational Research Group of National Covid-19 Task Force

– Chairperson of Scientific Advisory Committee of qHPV program between India’s Dept of Biotechnology & Gates Foundation

– WHO Strategic Group Member

– Part of SAGE Group

– Adviser to Bill Gates’ Projects on Immunization

– Member, GACVS

– Adviser to National AEFI Committee in 2017

– Chairperson of National AEFI Committee from 2008-2017

– Member of Scientific Advisory Board, ICMR (2007)

– Rockefeller INCLEN fellowship, 1993

– Contributor to WHO’s Covid19 Vaccine Safety Surveillance Manual

Source for the above : http://inclentrust.org/inclen/wp-content/uploads/N-K-Arora.pdf

– His research is directly sponsored by the Gates Foundation https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Vol_III_1.pdf

– Contributor to India State level Disease Burden Initiative, funded by Gates Foundation. https://phfi.org/downloads/171110_India_Health_of_Nation_states_Report_2017.pdf

– Involved in the drafting of the revised AEFI causality assessment guidelines, which make it impossible to attribute deaths and new serious adverse events to vaccines. https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/publications/CausalityAssessmentAEFI_EN.pdf

2) Dr. Cherry Gagandeep Kang

– Professor at CMC Vellore (Which receives a lot of grants from the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2019/10/inv00119

https://vellorecmc.org/about/partners-in-philanthropy/friends-of-cmc/

https://www.cmch-vellore.edu/sites/research/International%20Funding%20Agencies.html

– Head of Wellcome Trust Research Lab at CMC https://www.cmcwtrl.in/gagandeep-kang.php

– Member of Global Health Scientific Advisory Committee in the Gates Foundation
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/leadership/scientific-advisory-committee

– Vice chair of the board of CEPI (body created & funded by Bill Gates, World Economic Forum, Wellcome Trust, etc) https://cepi.net/about/whoweare/

– First Indian to be elected as fellow of the Royal Society https://www.facebook.com/gatesfoundation/posts/congratulations-to-dr-gagan-for-being-the-first-indian-woman-to-become-a-fellow-/10157701125213072/

– Core Member, NTAGI https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/MoM%20NTAGI%202020.pdf

– Developed an oral rotavirus vaccine, that was sold by Bharat Biotech, who’s MD was funded by Bill Gates. https://www.bharatbiotech.com/images/press/Rotavirus-Vaccine-Developed-in-India-Demonstrates-Strong-Efficacy-(ENGLISH)-May-14-2013.pdf

– Adviser, WHO GACVS https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/current_members_GACVS.pdf

– Chair, WHO SEAR Regional Immunization Technical Advisory https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/335831/SEA-Immun-119-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

– Most if not all of her research directly funded by the Gates Foundation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3656-564X Check funding section

– Conducted a panel discussion with Dr. Santosh Matthew, Country lead for Public Policy and Finance at the Gates Foundation India https://ciihive.in/Flyer/PUBHEALTH2.pdf

– Involved in the drafting of the revised AEFI causality assessment guidelines, which make it impossible to attribute deaths and new serious adverse events to vaccines. https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/publications/CausalityAssessmentAEFI_EN.pdf

3) K Vijayraghavan

– Principal Scientific Advisor to Government of India :
Gates said Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also a “partner with the government, particularly with the department of biotechnology, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the office of the principal scientific advisor provide advice and help about getting these tools going”. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-is-capable-of-producing-covid-19-vaccine-for-the-entire-world-bill-gates-11594901608618.html

– Member of Covid-19 Task Force Vaccine setup to encourage R&D for vaccine manufacturers. https://theprint.in/india/governance/this-is-the-team-advising-pm-modi-in-indias-battle-against-coronavirus/388607/

– Chairperson of CEPI’s interim board (Organization Created & Funded by Bill Gates, Wellcome Trust, World economic forum, etc) https://dst.gov.in/pressrelease/dr-harsh-vardhan-inaugurates-second-meeting-interim-board-cepi

– Ex Governing Board Member of PHFI https://phfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/annual_report2014.pdf

– Authored Report along with the Rockefeller Foundation on scaling up Covid-19 testing in India https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/psa-to-goi-rockefeller-foundation-release-recommendations-for-equitable-cost-effective-covid-testing-and-tracing/

– Launched “Navigating the New Normal”Campaign created by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create behavior change in people. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1634328

– Speaker at events hosted by Nudge & the Rockefeller Foundation. https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/state-editions/the-nudge-foundation-convenes-charcha-2021-from-aug-13-15.html

ITSU (Immunization Technical Support Unit)

ITSU was Setup by PHFI in 2012 by a 6.9 million $ grant from Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation had funded an activity called ‘evidence to policy’ at the Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU), which in turn acted as secretariat of another key body called the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI). This was a crucial panel that examines scientific evidence on the effectiveness of new vaccines and recommends their inclusion in the national vaccination programmes.

The Senior Management Team of the ITSU’s key areas of focus consist of the AEFI Secretariat, Implementation of India’s Immunization Program, & the Communications Strategy of the Covid-19 Vaccine Communication Program. Other Partners in deciding the communication strategy of the Covid-19 vaccine program include UNICEF & the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/centre-shuts-gate-on-bill-melinda-gates-foundation/articleshow/57028697.cms

The funding of the BMGF to the ITSU Secretariat was withdrawn after controversy over influence of vaccine manufacturers in India’s Universal Immunization Programme, but funding to other parts of the ITSU by the BMGF still continues, according to WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN15N13K

PHFI’s FCRA license was also removed by the Ministry of Home Affairs for sometime due to various reasons, including misappropriation of funds, not disclosing FDs, remitting funds abroad, etc.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/mha-order-revoking-license-of-phfi-lists-7-undesirable-activities/articleshow/58294627.cms

After this, then PHFI Chairman Narayan Murthy wrote a letter to the PM, Narendra Modi, asking him to restore PHFI’s license as the withdrawal was putting many of the public health programs which PHFI started at risk. Interesting thing to note is that in the article where Murthy’s letter is referenced, the author also reports that the license was cancelled based on input from Intelligence Bureau.

“The Union health ministry is also said to have taken up the matter with Gauba. His predecessor, Rajiv Mehrishi, who was part of the decision to crack down on PHFI, had refused a review after both the Intelligence Bureau and the foreigners division of the home ministry said they had made a watertight case against PHFI. Intelligence Bureau officers said they would not buckle under pressure, for the charges hold ground.“

In his letter, Murthy reminds Narendra Modi of his early support to PHFI : “With the generous support extended by you as the chief minister of Gujarat in 2007, PHFI established the Indian Institute of Public Health-Gandhinagar, aided by the land and financial assistance provided by the Gujarat government. With your blessings, we have now set up a permanent campus at Gandhinagar next to IIT-Gandhinagar. This beautiful campus on the banks of Sabarmati was inaugurated by Gujarat Chief Minister Vijaybhai Rupani in 2016 at the site chosen by you for the bhoomi pooja.”

Srinath Reddy, the President of PHFI had also written to Modi on June 30 2017, calling himself a “foot solider” who was appealing to “his commander in chief to save him from the friendly fire which is misdirected”. “We request you to protect PHFI as it is gravely endangered, and guide it in its future journey with your clear directions,” he wrote. “We were hoping the matter will be resolved soon, especially since the Union health minister and health secretary conveyed their trust and support for the relevance and values of PHFI’s work in public health.”

Source : https://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/foreign-bug.html

Also during this period, a journalist interviewed Gates Foundation India’s Director Nachiket Mor. When he was asked to clarify allegations surrounding Gates Foundations role in influencing India’s Immunization Programme, he said :

“The question to ask whoever is making these allegations is, why is there so much insecurity about your own competence? Ultimately, Indians are taking decisions in India’s best interests. If anybody alleges that they are acting under the influence of foreigners, I’d ask them to take a good look in the mirror. Consider some of the people driving these decisions in India. Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Dr. MK Bhan, Dr. Vijayaraghavan — these are fantastic people. By making such an allegation, you are saying you don’t think these people are competent.”

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/dont-think-phfi-issue-has-anything-to-do-with-us/article18186274.ece

So basically he wants us to think that the scientists who are being funded by or have great relations with the Gates foundation, are fantastic people! And if we doubt them, then we are doubting our own competence – that will be a cruel joke to you if you make it to the end of this article.

After the above taking place, the license was restored later with the rider that PHFI would have to take prior approval from the ministry before receiving funds, among other checks.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/phfi-can-get-foreign-funds-but-has-to-report-use-to-centre/articleshow/62843362.cms

Members of Senior Management Team of ITSU include :

1) Pritu Dhalaria , Director of ITSU. Ex Director of PATH’s Immunization Portfolio, Ex-Member of NTAGI, worked at PATH, WHO & Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the past.

2) Apurva Rastogi, Project Manager at ITSU, Ex Researcher at PHFI

3) Kishore Kumar Bajaj, Senior Operations Manager at ITSU. Has worked at PHFI & PATH in the past.

4) Dr. GK Soni , Team Lead of program implementation at ITSU. Has worked at PHFI in the past

https://itsu.org.in/about-itsu/

According to PHFI’s own website :
Improving Immunisation Coverage rate among children
Through Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU), PHFI is helping MoHFW in the expansion of immunisation coverage, improvement of quality, and introduction of new vaccines. PHFI has extended support to ‘Mission Indradhanush’ for targeted increase from 65% to 90% rate of coverage of full immunization among children.

https://phfi.org/about/what-do-we-do/

Everything to do with the adverse events of the Covid-19 vaccines is handled by the ITSU, right from the drafting of the guidelines which decide which death will be considered to be caused by a vaccine and which will not, to coordinating between various AEFI committees, collecting and organizing data for the groups, etc. Talk about conflict of interest?
https://itsu.org.in/aefi/

After the PHFI & Gates Foundation controversy resulted in Gates foundations direct funding of ITSU’s secretariat being withdrawn, the scientists who have been referenced in this report that have grave conflicts of interest were quick to give statements in the media covering up for the vaccine industry.

Excerpt from the article :

“Conflict of interest generally refers to when someone participating in a decision-making process seeks to have a decision made that enhances their best interests in some way, usually a financial benefit,” says K. Vijayraghavan, scientist and secretary, Department of Biotechnology, health ministry.

“At the NTAGI subcommittee, we ask all members to declare their conflicts of interest and this is done. The policy we follow is similar to that of WHO.”

The Big Money, Big Pharma, Big Corruption plot just doesn’t work, adds Dr Soumya Swaminathan, secretary, Department of Health Research, health ministry.

To begin with, the NTAGI is not a ‘body’, but a committee of some of the best scientists, public health experts and civil servants in the country, who take decisions in their independent capacity.

The BMGF may have “big money”, but it is not represented in the NTAGI. And as the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world, India itself is ‘big pharma’. “If our strategy can be influenced, what does it say about our expertise, intelligence or integrity?” asks Dr Soumya.

And, Gates, as an international donor, is key in fulfilling that requirement. “Conspiracy theories, without any evidence, can greatly harm the immunisation programme,” adds Dr K. Srinath Reddy, president of the Public Health Foundation of India in Delhi.

Source : https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/health/story/20170306-bill-gates-foundation-vaccines-for-poor-india-health-985853-2017-02-27

Journalist Kapil Bajaj had sent a list of questions to Ex PHFI Chairman, Narayan Murthy, one of them was regarding how PHFI intends to resolve the conflicts of interest which exist within its governing body. This was Narayan Murthy’s response :

” I do not see any conflict of interest. This institution is about training, research and policy to improve public health delivery in India. The institution has highly-respected and accomplished people to guide it to achieve its objectives. The individuals on the board have demonstrated leadership in excellence. Some have expertise in public health delivery, some have managed non-profits, some have been excellent academicians, some have been top quality government bureaucrats, and, in addition, some have contributed to the endowment for the institution. These people spend their precious time to make this institution a world-class institution. The students who pass out from this institution can join any institution they like and there is no way they will be influenced to join any company founded or financed by any of the board members. For example, just because I am the chairman of IIITB, no student from there was ever influenced by me to join Infosys. Similarly, all over the world, high quality educational institutions invite well-known people to be on their board to leverage their expertise. On the issue of policy research, this institute only recommends policies and it is for the governments to accept or reject it. Further, I have been involved in lots of policy making bodies in my field in India and never once have I put the interest of my company ahead of the country.  “

Source : https://www.moneylife.in/article/mr-narayana-murthy-phfi-reply-to-questions-about-the-authority-and-functioning-of-the-organisation/18418.html

In other words, all of them are basically asking us to ignore their conflicts, and trust them!

Connections of India’s Covid-19 Task Force to the Vaccine Mafia

Names of all Task Force Members can be found here: https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/rrt/ICMR_COVID_Response_Teams_08072021_v12.pdf

Chairperson

1) Dr. Vinod K Paul:

VK Paul, Member of NITI Aayog along with Bill Gates

– Visiting Professor, PHFI, & Chief Guest at PHFI functions (https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/about-us/vinod-paul.pdf?sfvrsn=d0771d4c_2)

– Part of Union Govts Core Team for Covid 19 Pandemic Response.

– Chairs Empowered Group on Medical Infrastructure & Covid Management Plan

– Chairs National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for Covid-19

– Reports to PM Modi directly

– Worked as Member of High Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage, setup by Planning Commission & funded by Rockefeller Foundation, under the chairmanship of PHFI President Srinath Reddy. This would lay the groundwork for what eventually became the Ayushman Bharat Scheme. (http://uhc-india.org/reports/executive_summary.pdf)

– Launched “Navigating the New Normal”Campaign created by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create behavior change in people.
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1634328

https://ashoka.edu.in/page/COVID19-centres-445

– Part of Panel on Stigmatization head along with PHFI Governing board member Lav Agarwal & Gates Foundation India Head Hari Menon. https://twitter.com/nitiaayog/status/1253628777084510214?lang=en

– Part of a panel discussion on Holistic long term medicare system in the case of covid 19 alongside PHFI President Srinath Reddy. https://iicdelhi.in/programmes/towards-holistic-long-term-medi-care-system-case-covid-19

– Released “Health System for a New India” Report with Bill Gates, was a major contributor to Aayushman Bharat Scheme Praised by Bill Gates.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bill-gates-congratulates-indian-government-for-ayushman-bharat-scheme/articleshow/67574481.cms?from=mdr

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1591934

– Part of Advisory panel on Covid-19 Vaccine communication strategy,who’s core partners include ITSU, BMGF & UNICEF. https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/Covid19CommunicationStrategy2020.pdf

– His research is directly funded by Wellcome Trust https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Vol_IV_1.pdf

– Contributor to India State level disease burden initiative, funded by Gates Foundation. https://phfi.org/downloads/171110_India_Health_of_Nation_states_Report_2017.pdf

– Drafted Uttar Pradesh Govermnents State Health policy along with representatives of WHO-India, PHFI, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Bank, etc https://phfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Annual_Report_2017-18.pdf

Ex- co chair

2) Preeti Sudan :

– Ex Governing Body Member of PHFI https://phfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Annual_Report_2017-18.pdf

– Post Graduate in Social Policy & Planning from London School of Economics

– Ex-consultant for the World Bank
https://www.who.int/pmnch/about/governance/board/chairs/india/en/

– Member of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness Setup by the WHO https://theindependentpanel.org/panel-members/

– Accused by Andhra Pradesh Government of misusing public position for personal benefit https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/disciplinary-proceedings-against-ias-officer-preeti-sudan-begin/article33917426.ece

– Key functionary in planning and execution of Aayushman Bharat Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preeti_Sudan

– Board Member of the Partnership for Maternal, New born & childhood health, who’s funders and other board members include the Gates Foundation, USAID, World Bank, WHO,Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson&Johnson, GAVI https://pmnch.who.int/about-pmnch

– Speaker at events hosted by Nudge & the Rockefeller Foundation https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/business/2020/08/12/pwr17-thenudge-foundation.html

Present Co-chairs :

3) Health Secretary Rajesh Bhushan

– On the advisory panel of India’s Covid19 vaccine communication strategy, who’s core partners include Gates Foundation, ITSU & UNICEF https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/Covid19CommunicationStrategy2020.pdf

– Appreciated collaboration between Gates Foundation & Ministry of Rural Development https://indiaeducationdiary.in/govt-signs-mou-with-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-under-deendayal-antyodaya-yojana-national-rural-livelihoods-mission-day-nrlm/

– Co-chair of NEGVAC https://theprint.in/india/governance/too-many-cooks-15-committees-dozens-of-experts-behind-indias-fumbling-covid-response/658487/

– Expressed full support for behavior change campaign started by Gates Foundation focused on mask wearing by all & social distancing. The mask-wearing campaign is designed by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in partnership with McCann Worldgroup. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1634328

4) Dr. Balram Bhargava

– Director General, ICMR

– Co-chairperson, NTAGI https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/MoM%20NTAGI%202020.pdf

– Member of NEGVAC https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/expert-group-on-covid-19-vaccine-expert-group-to-meet-vaccine-makers-on-tuesday/article32350975.ece

– Governing Body Member of PHFI

– Chief Guest at PHFI events https://www.facebook.com/thePHFI/posts/snapshots-of-iiphgs-convocation-chief-guest-prof-balram-bhargava-secretary-to-th/1898769443499609/

– Personally handed awards along with Bill Gates to Cyrus Poonawalla and Kiran Mazumdar Shaw https://twitter.com/profbhargava/status/1196117377882046464?lang=en

– Hosted Bill Gates at ICMR https://twitter.com/profbhargava/status/1196115482585128960

– Entered a collaborative deal by signing a DOI with Gates Foundation and NIH, right before the Covid-19 pandemic began https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/press_realease_files/PressRelease_17Nov2019.pdf

– Speaker at Grand challenges annual meeting, hosted by Wellcome Trust, Gates Foundation & USAID.

– Launched National Data Quality Forum along with Rockefeller created Population Council, WHO, & the Gates Foundation ( https://www.expresshealthcare.in/news/icmr-nims-launch-national-data-quality-forum-to-improve-quality-of-data-that-feeds-into-evidence-based-decision-making/412980/?SuperSocializerAuth=LiveJournal

– Lauded the partnership to create Covid-19 vaccine between Serum Institute, Gates Foundation, and GAVI https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/serum-institute-of-india-partners-with-the-gates-foundation-for-manufacturing-100-million-doses-of-covid-19-vaccine-48084/

– When one trial participant developed a neurological condition in Serum Institutes indian vaccine trial, Balram bhargava mentioned why the trial was not halted like it was halted abroad when the same thing happened. He said: “Initial causality assessment findings did not necessitate stoppage,” https://www.science.org/news/2020/12/malicious-and-misconceived-indian-vaccine-producer-hits-back-complaint-trial-volunteer

– Balram Bhargava started the School of International Biodesign, with the help of Stanford Uni and IIT. According to him : ““We have had funding from various agencies, including national governments and international agencies, the Gates Foundation, the Grand Challenges Canada and the Pfizer Foundation, not to mention private investment from angel investors and others”  https://news.rcpsg.ac.uk/engagement/professor-balram-bhargava-awarded-the-presidents-medal/

– Sits on the Board of the International vaccine institute https://www.ivi.int/who-we-are/leadership/board-of-trustees/ which accelerates vaccine research and development worldwide, and is funded by the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, CEPI, etc.”

– Author of clinical trials of Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin https://indianexpress.com/article/india/what-rate-card-does-not-show-govt-help-in-developing-covaxin-7291708/

Members of the Task Force

5) Dr. Samiran Panda :

– According to him, ICMR funded trials of the Covishield vaccine https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/reneging-on-the-no-profit-pledge-to-supply-oxford-vaccine/article33705151.ece

– Has received grants for his research from the WHO (who’s second largest funder is Bill Gates)

– Study coordinator in a project supported by the Rockefeller created Population Council. Study coordinator in a project supported by the Ford Foundation & World Bank.
https://www.nari-icmr.res.in/nari/StaffDetails/39f3e134-43ce-9d51-eac6-3ceaf48a3b01

– Part of panel discussion hosted by infamous NGO PATH & Rockefeller Foundation on Sarscov2 surveillance in India https://finddx.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Lkc4oC30TbCBWsqBcPtSVw

6) Dr. Randeep Guleria

L-R : Balram Bhargava, Randeep Guleria, Srinath Reddy, VP PHFI, & VK Paul

– Presided over an event organised for Trevor Mundel, President of Global Health at the Gates foundation. https://dbtindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/Leadership_Dialogue_Series_2nd_lecture.pdf
According to Mundel, the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, AIIMS and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) are key partners of the Gates Foundation in India https://www.expresspharma.in/dbt-birac-and-aiims-organise-leadership-dialogue-series/?SuperSocializerAuth=LiveJournal

– Author of clinical trials conducted on Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin https://indianexpress.com/article/india/what-rate-card-does-not-show-govt-help-in-developing-covaxin-7291708/

7) Dr. Jagdish M Deshpande

– Studies he’s been part of have been funded by Gates Foundation & WHO https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5289926/

https://europepmc.org/article/med/25146288

– Participant of WHO/SEAR Technical Consultive Group on Polio Eradication

– Director at the Enterovirus Research Center in Mumbai, where training programs are held along with foreign agencies like the CDC https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/icmr-to-jointly-embark-study-on-norovirus-with-us-entity/articleshow/2532644.cms?from=mdr

– Coordinator of the national task force on laboratory containment of the wild polio virus. http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/to-contain-polio-a-nationwide-search-and-seal-operation/916411/0

– Co-chair of India expert advisory group on polio eradication, who’s core partners include Gates Foundation, WHO, CDC, World Bank, etc. https://iple.unicef.in/files/ckuploads/files/24th_IEAG.pdf

– Authored a paper along with Jay Wenger, Gates Foundation Global Development MD https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6686398_New_Strategies_for_the_Elimination_of_Polio_from_India

8) Dr Swarup Sarkar

– Director of Communicable Disease at WHO-SEARO, Asia Pacific Regional https://gaffi.org/professor-swarup-sarkar-joins-gaffi-as-a-senior-advisor/

– Chair at ICMR

– Director of the Asia pacific region of the Global Fund (started by Gates), who’s Ex director used to be Rajat Gupta

– Head of Asia Pacific Region of UNAIDS,

– Awarded by WHO Director General Tedros https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/who-felicitates-dr-swarup-sarkar-for-his-contribution-to-public-health/articleshow/67203097.cms

– Board member of India State level disease burden initiative, undertaken by PHFI, ICMR & IHME, & funded by Gates Foundation. https://phfi.org/downloads/171110_India_Health_of_Nation_states_Report_2017.pdf

9) JVR Prasada Rao

– Used to be Co-chair of the India AIDS Initiative that was started by the Gates Foundation, along with fellow co-chair Rajat Gupta, and Director of Gates Foundation India, Ashok Alexander. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2003/10/india-aids-initiative India AIDS Initiative (aka Avahan) was funded to the tune of 200 million dollars over the years!

– Special Advisor to UNAIDS

– Ex Director at NACO.

– NACO received funding of 23 million dollars from the Gates Foundation. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2006/10/indias-national-aids-control-organization-naco-receives-23-million-commitment

– Later Gates Foundation sent a grant for NACO through PHFI, which JVR Prasada Rao is now a board member of https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2015/08/opp1131140

– NACO’s partners include UNAIDS, the Gates Foundation, the Clinton foundation, USAID, the Global Fund, the World Bank, and WHO. http://naco.gov.in/bilateral-and-multilateral-partners-0

– NACO then went on to merge with the Health Ministry https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/naco-no-more-an-independent-wing/articleshow/41747087.cms

– Governing Body Member of PHFI

– Secretary of Health and Family welfare from 2002-2004

– Member of Transitional Working Group, which decided the Operational Mechanism for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS TB & Malaria, who’s chairman used to be fraud Rajat Gupta, & the body itself was started by a donor grant from Bill Gates.

– Member of High Level Forum started by the World Bank, WHO, etc.-Board member of India State level disease burden initiative, funded by Gates Foundation. https://phfi.org/downloads/171110_India_Health_of_Nation_states_Report_2017.pdf

10) Dr. Sanjay Zodpey

– Projects undertaken by him at PHFI are directly funded by Gates Foundation.

– Contributor to India State level disease burden initiative, funded by Gates Foundation. https://phfi.org/downloads/171110_India_Health_of_Nation_states_Report_2017.pdf

11) Dr. Sanjay Pujari

– On the Advisory board of, and taking speaker fees from Cipla, Mylan, Emcure pharmaceuticals & Hetero https://www.eacsociety.org/media/hivss2018_s._pujari_oi.pdf

– His research has been funded by the NIH

– Participant of a meeting held on AIDS, TB & Malaria, alongside people from pharmaceutical companies, Gates foundation, etc http://digicollection.org/hss/en/d/Js6172e/14.html

12) Dr. Raman Gangakhedkar :

– Member of Lancet Covid-19 Commission’s India Regional Task Force, who’s founding donor is the Rockefeller Foundation https://covid19commission.org/regional-task-force-india

– His research is directly funded by the NIH, WHO, & the Gates Foundation
https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Vol_II_1.pdf

https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/List_of_HMSC_approved_projects_August_2017_December_2019_New.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956462420983992

– Ex Director of National AIDS Research Institute

13) Rajan Khobragade

– Principal Secretary of Health & Family Welfare of the Govt of Kerala

– Member of Lancet Covid-19 Commission’s India Regional Task Force, who’s founding donor is the Rockefeller Foundation https://covid19commission.org/regional-task-force-india

– Gave the Welcome Note at Kerala Health – Making SDG a reality conference, who’s partners inclued World Bank and the WHO. https://keralahealthconference.in/

– Part of the NGO PATH’s webinar on Covid 19 testing in India (the same NGO that conducted illegal vaccine trials in India in the past and still no action has been taken against it https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NMMJnj6CTcKGfAEro0HfkQ

14) Dr. Naveet Wig :

– Researcher on a report headed by NK Arora, and funded by Wellcome Trust http://inclentrust.org/inclen/wp-content/uploads/Report_Leadership_6thApril_-1.pdf

– Research done by him is funded by the Gates foundation https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82085185.pdf

– Speaker at the American Society of Tropical medicine and hygiene, which is funded by various pharma and vaccine companies like Sanofi, GSK, etc. https://www.astmh.org/ASTMH/media/Documents/ASTMH_06_FP.pdf

15) Dr Shashi Kant :

– His Research is funded by pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/List_of_HMSC_approved_projects_August_2017_December_2019_New.pdf

– Was part of the core group at NACO, whos connections to vested interests are described above. He has been providing NACO advice since 1998
http://www.naco.gov.in/sites/default/files/Strategic%20Information%20and%20Surveillance.pdf

16) Dr Sujeet Singh :

– Director of National Center for Disease Control, which houses the IDSP, that was launched along with the World Bank. https://idsp.nic.in/index1.php?lang=1&level=1&sublinkid=5768&lid=3697

– Done a lot of joint collaborative work along with PHFI and its president Srinath Reddy
https://idsp.nic.in/WriteReadData/IHIP/Report_repriortization%20Diseases.pdf

https://phfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Annual-Report_2019-20.pdf

17) Dr. Kirankumar Rade

– Associated with WHO Country Office for India as a medical consultant since 2005

– Speaker at USAID organized TBII https://healthtech4tb.org/

– Studies he has worked on have been funded by the Gates Foundation https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214928

– Contributor to a document funded by USAID, Gates foundation, The Global fund, etc http://www.stoptb.org/assets/documents/global/plan/globalplantoendtb_theparadigmshift_2016-2020_stoptbpartnership.pdf

– Contributing author to India State level disease burden initiative, conducted by PHFI, ICMR & IHME, & funded by the Gates Foundation https://phfi.org/downloads/171110_India_Health_of_Nation_states_Report_2017.pdf

18) Dr Lalit Dar :

– Heads the Virology Laboratory at AIIMS, which collaborates on various projects with foreign universities, as well as NIH and CDC. https://www.aiims.edu/hi/about-us/102-microbiology-h/2296-dr-l-dar.html

– Member of Technical resource group for NACO (background mentioned above)

– Part of PHFI hosted Webinars https://twitter.com/thephfi/status/1282538049927176192?lang=en

19) Dr Manoj Murhekar

– His research is directly funded by the CDC & the Medical Research Council of UK https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Vol_IV_1.pdf

– Dr. Murhekar also worked with the World Health Organization (WHO) Western Pacific Regional Office as a consultant and professional staff member in Papua New Guinea and the Philippines.

– Contributing author to India State level disease burden initiative, conducted by PHFI, ICMR & IHME, & funded by the Gates Foundation https://phfi.org/downloads/171110_India_Health_of_Nation_states_Report_2017.pdf

– Studies conducted by him have been directly funded by the Gates foundation https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.27.21252424v1

20) Dr Nivedita Gupta

– Responsible for creating Covid-19 testing & treatment protocols in India https://www.vogue.in/culture-and-living/content/vogue-warriors-dr-nivedita-gupta-scientist-covid-19-testing-treatment-protocols-in-india

– She was also the primary scientist involved in the investigations and containment of the Nipah virus outbreak in Kerala last year.

– Directly funded by the Gates foundation & John Hopkins University for her research https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/List_of_HMSC_approved_projects_August_2017_December_2019_New.pdf

https://www.indiascienceandtechnology.gov.in/research/mobile-application-immunization-data-india-maidi

– Part of the NGO PATH’s webinar on Covid 19 testing in India (the same NGO that conducted illegal vaccine trials in India in the past and still no action has been taken against it) https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NMMJnj6CTcKGfAEro0HfkQ

21) Dr Subhash Salunke

– Senior Adviser to the President of PHFI

– His 30 years’ experience in the Public Health Department spans from Position of Deputy Director to Director General in the Health Services of Maharashtra State

– His stint with the WHO SEARO spanned from being Regional Advisor in 2005 to Assistant Regional Director in 2009, including three years as WHO-Representative to Indonesia

– He was actively involved in formulating projects like “Health System Development” for Maharashtra State that was supported by the World Bank.

– He has shown leadership in designing the HIV/AIDS Control special programme (AVERT) with the assistance of USAID for Maharashtra State

– He was one of the members of designing National AIDS Control Programme Phase II during 1999-2000
https://phfi.org/member/dr-subhash-r-salunke-md-dph-dih/

– Involved in the steering committee of a study which was funded by big pharmaceutical companies and the Gates Foundation https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/Supplement_3/S238/6362481

22)Dr Sanjay L Chauhan

Scientist at the National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health. NIRRH has been involved in conducting studies along with the Gates Foundation and Rockefeller created and funded Population Council. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-018-0636-7

23) Dr Tarun Bhatnagar :

– He was the recipient of an NIH Fogarty fellowship for his PhD in epidemiology under the AIDS International Training and Research Program at the University of California Los Angeles from 2004-2011. https://www.tephinet.org/tarun-bhatnagar

– Authored analysis along with Giridhar Babu of PHFI to increase testing in India https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-has-low-testing-rate-needs-to-scale-up-surveillance-analysis/story-yRQDOQlTlHOq0sLDHU63IM.html

– Part of NACO subgroup http://www.naco.gov.in/sites/default/files/Strategic%20Information%20and%20Surveillance.pdf

– He was working at NIE as Project Manager in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation multi-centric project on Integrated Behavioural and Biological Assessment of HIV since November 2007. http://14.139.190.203/staff-more.php?mid=Mg==&divid=MQ==&id=NQ==

– Studies he’s authored have been directly funded by the Gates Foundation https://jech.bmj.com/content/66/Suppl_2/ii55

24) Dr. Jerin Jose Cherian

– Part of expert panel in Global-Bio India 2021, who’s partners include Serum Institute of India, Biocon, CII, & many other pharma companies https://www.globalbioindia.com/images/Bio-India-2021-Agenda.pdf

– Member of Health Tech Assessment board meeting, chaired by VK Paul & Balram Bhargava https://htain.icmr.org.i
n/images/pdf/2nd_Board_Meeting_Minutes_3rd_May_2019.pdf

– Contributes as a member of the national team developing Standard Treatment Workflows for the National Healthcare Program AB-PMJAY (background to which is referenced earlier)

– Authored paper with Balram Bhargava & Swarup Sarkar on making India an independent manufacturer of pharmaceutical ingredients https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351478239_India’s_Road_to_Independence_in_Manufacturing_Active_Pharmaceutical_Ingredients_Focus_on_Essential_Medicines

25) Dr Tanu Anand :

– Part of team at IAPSM, along with members of Gates Foundation, PHFI, and others. https://www.iapsmyc2021.com/mentors

Many of the members listed above, lied about not having any conflict of interest in the NTAGI committee meeting

NTAGI (National Technical advisory Group on Immunization) is the expert group in India which approves vaccines that eventually make their way into India’s vaccine schedule. This group is also convening on the Covid-19 vaccines and going through data on their efficacy as well as adverse events.
That in a letter dated 20.01.2021 the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of Government of India Immunization Division regarding Minutes of the meeting National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) held on 10th December, 2020 had mentioned about declaration by members regarding their conflict of interest.

It reads thus; “All participating NTAGI members and invited attendees had duly filled and signed the confidentially agreement, and declared conflict of interest (if any), and shared these with the NTAGI Secretariat. No conflict of interest was noted.”

The falsity of above declaration is clear from the very fact that the following members are having conflict of interest:

1. Dr. Sunil Kumar Director General of Health Service
2. Dr. Gagandeep Kang Professor, CMC Vellore
3. Dr. K. Srinath Reddy President, Public Health Foundation of India 4. Dr. Samiran Panda Scientist ‘G’ ICMR, New Delhi
5. Dr. Nivedita Gupta Scientist ‘F’ ICMR, New Delhi
6. Dr. N. K. Arora Chair COVID – 19 Working Group, Executive Director, INCLEN International
7. Dr. Balram Bhargava Secretary, Department on Health Research & DG-ICMR

Source: https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/MoM%20NTAGI%202020.pdf

Important Questions that ICMR must Answer

Given all of this, how can the ICMR be involved in the task force, or setting up of the task force? It has a past of colluding with PATH and present of inking many deals with the Gates foundation. Many of ICMRs researchers and scientists are getting funding from the pharmaceutical companies and international “philanthropic” bodies.

ICMR is also involved in funding the trials of both Covaxin as well as Covishield. The ICMR, previously in reply to an RTI query from a news magazine, said the estimated cost incurred by ICMR towards development of Covaxin was `35 crore. However, sources said the figure put out by ICMR was a conservative estimate and the actual cost – when calculated properly in terms of NIV’s human resources, intellectual investment, time and establishment costs – would be much more. It gets 5% percent royaltiesfrom the sale of Bharat Biotech vaccines.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/icmr-to-get-royalty-from-covaxin-sale/article34474504.ece

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/250821/bharat-biotech-underplayed-role-of-icmr-nin-in-covaxin-development.html

Mainstream Media Reporting on the Covid-19 Task Force

These are some of the minutes of what has been going on inside the Task force : https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/ICMR_NTF_Meetings_v1.pdf

Journalists have been trying to uncover what has been going on inside the task force. Some have tried to pin blame or put responsibility on its members for the decisions taken by the Modi Government, or the lackthereof, but because they could not manage to find the list of the task force members, they could not pin individual responsibility on anyone. However now you, the reader, can go through these articles, and then put them into context with everything that we’ve discussed above. Important excerpts from these articles are highlighted below:

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/coronavirus-transmission-covid-19-task-force-national-lockdown-7298468/

“Some members of the Covid-19 task force, a technical expert body that advises the Central Government, are “pushing hard” for a national lockdown, The Sunday Express has learnt. The task force includes experts from premier health institutions, including AIIMS and ICMR, and has met many times during the recent surge. The deliberations of these experts are of significance since the chairperson of the task force, V K Paul, reports to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”

“The Covid-19 task force is trying to say this very aggressively for the last few weeks. That we should tell the people at the top that we should have a lockdown,” a member said. “A nationwide lockdown rather than what we are doing now, in bits and pieces across states, because of the simple fact that it is spreading all over,” a member said.”

https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/public-health/indias-national-task-force-for-covid-19-and-the-government-did-not-prepare-for-the-second-wave-of-the-pandemic/article34471646.ece

“The fact that India does not know the names of the 21 members of its National Task Force for COVID-19 is emblematic of the colossal failure of both the task force—whose only job seems to be to endorse the decisions of its political masters—and the government to prepare for or take steps to mitigate the inevitable second wave of the pandemic. Should such a task force not be taken to task for its laxity and negligence?”

“WHO is the Indian equivalent of Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the President of the United States? One would be hard-pressed to answer this question.”

“In keeping with the government’s penchant for not sharing information, the names of the other members of the NTF have not been made public. If at all there is any government body, if not an individual like Fauci, to advise the government on the pandemic, it would be the NTF.”

“Right from the beginning of the pandemic, the NTF has been found grossly wanting in discharging its responsibilities with the scientific integrity required of such a panel. That the higher executive arm of the government wanted it to say only the things it wanted to hear became clear in March 2020 when the government announced the countrywide lockdown. It was done without consulting the NTF even as its members apparently held contrary views given that at that time the caseload in India was only around 500 and a more calibrated region-wise response based on epidemiological data would have been more prudent, but none of them spoke out. The NTF’s silence on the matter would imply that it implicitly endorsed the decision.”

“The NTF’s scientific integrity was also called into question when it did not voice dissent over the unethical Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) given to Covaxin in January in the so-called “clinical trial mode” even as the Phase 3 trials of the vaccine were ongoing and there was not even interim data on its efficacy. And after the vaccine campaign got under way in January, the NTF also does not seem to have advised the Health Ministry to be transparent with regard to the data on adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) or implications thereof on the ongoing vaccination drive.”

“What is highly at once surprising and disconcerting is the fact that, as The Caravan magazine has revealed, even as a second wave loomed large and as the number of cases was surging, the NTF did not meet at all in February or March.”

“However, the Health Ministry’s document, on which all treatment protocols in hospitals across the country are based, was not updated until April 2021. If only the NTF had ensured that an updated document was sent out early on, all the chaos, clamour and the mad scramble for remdesivir, the smuggling, hoarding and black-marketing of the drug and the all-round desperation of hospitals and hospitalised patients could have been prevented. Belatedly, on April 21, three doctors, including Randeep Guleria, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, had to clarify that remdesivir had very limited therapeutic potential for patients. Only after this, on April 22, did the Health Ministry update its treatment protocol, which now (“based on limited evidence”) advises use of remdesivir in special circumstances in moderate to severe cases (requiring supplementary oxygen) within 10 days of onset of symptoms.”

How Members with Conflict of Interest also get the Science Wrong

One might be innocent enough to think that these ties which the above listed members have wouldn’t interfere with their decisions and recommendations on public health matters, assuming that the members would have the integrity to put people over money and influence. But such people would be terribly wrong in making such assumptions, as can be seen by the outlandish and scientifically incorrect positions taken by many task force members in the public.

After 1.5 years of the pandemic having passed, these facts have been clearly established :

– Lockdowns are not effective, and have many negative consequences

– Asymptomatic people don’t spread disease

– Natural immunity is many times better than vaccine-conferred immunity

– Vaccinations won’t end the pandemic or prevent future waves, as many countries that have reached over 80 percent vaccination rates are continuing to go for more lockdowns/restrictions and boosters.

– The Covid-19 vaccines are not safe as many serious adverse events and deaths have taken place post- vaccination, and their efficacy is based on weak evidence.

– Masks are not effective in stopping virus transmission, and have many negative health consequences.

– The RT-PCR and RAT tests have a high rate of false positives, and the RT-PCR test is not the Gold Standard for diagnosing infectious diseases.

– India has reached herd immunity and can go back to normal, as the last nationwide sero-survey has showed that around 70% people have developed antibodies either after natural infection, or vaccination.

– Effective and safe prevention options as well as cures exist for Covid-19, like Vitamin D, 3 step flu diet, Ivermectin, HCQ+Zinc, MATH+ Protocol, etc.

Scientific evidence for this can be found in this paper authored by me – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hBH2jNK-XpOn-lWlm1jKa78cnJQ4sntw/view

Now lets see how most of our fellow task force members and other “experts” go against these facts, and continue to promote the agenda of vested interests and the pharmaceutical companies.

Srinath Reddy : stated that banking on the concept of herd immunity would prove costly and deadly.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2021/aug/13/herd-immunity-not-a-magic-wand-public-health-foundation-of-india-2344083.html

Gagandeep Kang : No need to worrry about reports of blood clots linked to Covishield vaccine
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/virologist-gagandeep-kang-sii-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-covishield-blood-clots-1788904-2021-04-09

K Vijayraghavan : No safety concerns of Covid-19 vaccines
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/no-safety-concerns-of-covid-19-vaccines-scientific-advisor/article33686019.ece

NK Arora – ZyCovD vaccine safe and effective for adolescents https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/zycov-d-vaccine-safe-and-effective-for-adolescents-says-expert/article36155457.ece

VK Paul – Time has come to wear mask at home
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/video/time-has-come-to-wear-mask-at-home-dr-vk-paul-1795202-2021-04-26

Samiran Panda – I will suggest the public follow Covid appropriate behaviour and get the vaccine shot. There is no time for showing hesitancy against vaccines
https://theprint.in/health/dont-blame-mutant-strains-for-covid-surge-its-public-carelessness-say-top-health-experts/627816/

Naveet Wig – Can’t make India Covid free unless everyone is vaccinated
https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/cant-make-india-covid-free-unless-everybody-gets-vaccinated-aiims-dr-naveet-wig/videoshow/85717557.cms

JVR Prasada Rao – RT-PCR test confirmation should be main feature of any test carried out in India
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/rt-pcr-confirmation-should-be-the-main-feature-of-any-test-carried-out-in-india-jvr-prasada-rao-director-unaids-asia-pacific/79164073

Swarup Sarkar – said the country was dealing with the consequences of not adopting an aggressive vaccination strategy.
https://www.ft.com/content/2585ea9c-1b67-42eb-9c06-7fa711f45095

Randeep Guleria – A vaccine is important if we want to go back to normal
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-vaccine-is-important-if-we-want-to-get-back-to-normal-aiims-director/article33660673.ece

Balram Bhargava – Covid-19 vaccine should be given to pregnant women
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/covid-vaccine-should-be-given-to-pregnant-women-it-s-useful-for-them-icmr-1819398-2021-06-25

Sanjay Pujari – Until more data is available, individuals who have recovered (from Covid-19) need to adhere to Covid appropriate behaviour and get vaccinated in due time
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/reinfection-rare-immunity-lasting-in-those-who-contracted-covid-19-finds-city-study/articleshow/84250238.cms

Rajan Khobragade – Advocated for masks, increased testing, ban on gatherings, social distancing, etc in this report
https://alethonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/d5c8a-indiatfpolicybriefapril2021.pdf

Sanjay Zodpey – Citizens are equal stakeholders in the disease control efforts along with the government. They should adhere to covid appropriate behavior. All the available vaccines are safe and effective
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/covid-appropriate-behaviour-enhanced-vaccine-drive-will-delay-or-diminish-impact-of-3rd-wave/articleshow/83073891.cms

Nivedita Gupta – The people don’t look serious and alert any more. COVID-19 appropriate behavior is missing as also social distancing
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/why-are-covid-19-cases-rising-in-india-1.1617727123173

Raman Gangakhedkar – Wearing masks, following Covid rules enough to fight pandemic https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/coronavirus-masks-lockdown-former-icmr-chief-raman-gangakhedkar-1744138-2020-11-26

Subhash Salunke – People must follow the ‘SMS’ strategy, which means Sanitiser, Mask, and Social distancing. All non-essential services should be controlled and all large gatherings should be discouraged
https://www.news18.com/news/india/maharashtra-health-experts-prepare-7-point-strategy-to-contain-covid-focus-on-testing-across-hotspots-3517082.html

Tarun Bhatnagar – We need to be on our toes in terms of preventing crowding and increasing vaccination. Those are the only two ways.
https://www.wbur.org/npr/1038395212/indias-vaccination-drive-has-gathered-speed-but-theres-still-a-ways-to-go

*Important Update*

The entire task force recently removed two really effective drugs from the national protocol, that have a tremendous amount of scientific data behind them – Ivermectin & HCQ! They completely dropped these drugs, but have still allowed remdesivir to be used in certain conditions, even though it has none to little efficacy in cutting down hospitalization time or deaths, and a huge risk of side effects (mainly kidney failure).

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national-task-force-drops-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-from-clinical-guidance-for-covid-management/article36638643.ece

To understand the data as well as politics surrounding Ivermectins use in India, read this article and its previous parts too :

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout—part-v-the-secret-revealed/article_9a37d9a8-1fb2-11ec-a94b-47343582647b.html

https://trialsitenews.com/icmr-pulls-ivermectin-from-covid-19-treatments-while-promoting-remdesivir-roches-tocilizumab/

Legal Notice Sent to Our Health Minister, Mansukh Mandaviya

Based on the above evidence, and other scientific research that we have been collecting, Advocate Nilesh Ojha & Dipali Ojha, who head the Indian Bar Association, have sent a legal notice to our health minister, asking him to remove all the members who have conflict of interest from the Covid-19 task force, and all other bodies which influence policy making in the health space in India. He has also asked for prosecution of those who have these conflicts, under various sections of the IPC & Indian Law. If no action is taken on this legal notice, Adv. Nilesh Ojha will file a case in the Supreme Court.

Link to the legal notice : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IfAoqzG9KWlsoGDuvswmevnK3_UhAhfH/view

Conclusion

The capture of our pubic health agencies by fake philanthropists like Bill Gates, the Rockefellers & their frontmen, and the pharmaceutical/vaccine mafia started in India along time ago, in the year 2006. Since then, incidents like illegal HPV vaccine trial coming to light have put pressure on the perpetrators of the crimes (namely PATH and the Gates Foundation), but due to their tremendous infiltration and capture by these forces of the mainstream media, public health “experts”, government bureaucrats, etc the criminals are still able to conduct themselves in India without any barriers.

It is time to make these task force members and celebrity scientists feel the heat for all their decisions and recommendations that have destroyed the lives of millions of people, pushed millions into abject poverty, and decimated the fundamental right to travel, operate a business, speak freely, breathe & bodily autonomy of all Indians! Tag them personally on twitter, highlight each connection that is made here to the public, send legal notices, file court cases, etc. If you encounter them in person, record a video of them and confront them with these questions. Do whatever is necessary to make this plandemic end, as all the evidence to make it end has been provided to you in this document.

The Covid-19 plandemic is a well planned orchestrated medical fraud, executed by the same vested interests referenced in detail in this article, to usher in a technocratic orwellian global dictatorship, which will be accompanied by a resource grab executed by the elites. As Klaus Schwab, CEO of the World Economic Forum says : “You will own nothing, and you will be happy”. This criminal capture and sabotage of our public health agencies is what has enabled this, as the mafia wants to push mandatory testing, masks, vaccines and lockdowns on the world in order to pursue their New World Order/ Great Reset Agenda, and since they control almost everyone in key positions of power (as shown above), they have been able to do so very easily.

But now that all of this has been put in one place for you, you and Indians at large are hopefully able to see the puppeteering behind the scenes, atleast in the public health sector. Its high time we have throw out and imprison all these corrupt hijacked officials who are putting our health and livelihoods in grave danger, on behalf of the puppet masters who pull their strings. It is time to choose, between freedom or fascism, and act on the facts that we have learnt in this expose, so that we can stop the globalists from achieving their end goal, and are able to cement our goal forever – freedom and respect for the inalienable god given and constitutionally protected rights of every human being.

October 1, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates finally realises that lockdown hurts children

By Toby Green | Unherd | September 8, 2021

This week The Guardian featured two articles funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) as part of its sponsorship of the paper’s Global Development coverage. One noted on Monday that hundreds of millions of children had fallen behind across the world during the last 18 months, and the other stated that Covid measures meant that education was at risk of collapse in one quarter of the world’s countries.

However, the articles did not mention that these outcomes were the direct result of the lockdowns enthusiastically supported by, er, Bill Gates. These results were entirely predictable — and were indeed predicted at the outset of the lockdowns by UNESCO.

On 18 March 2020, UNESCO reported that half of the world’s schoolchil­dren were not attending school, and outlined the potential consequences. These included interrupted learning, decline in nutrition, erosion of child protection and childcare, and inequitable access to digital learning leading to multiple future inequities. But no one listened.

Nearly 18 months since the catastrophic global policy response to Covid-19 began, the evidence of the appalling harms caused to children and their education is staggering. The Guardian report noted the case of the Philippines, which had some of the “world’s toughest restrictions for children”, with schools still not being reopened after 18 months. Translation? It was illegal for children aged 5-15 to leave their homes between March 2020 and July 9th this year.

Does it require a multi-billion dollar philanthropist and teams of well-paid researchers to work out that children’s learning outcomes are going to be badly affected if they can’t go to school or leave their home? Add to that the fact they live in a seriously impoverished country with scant internet access too. Thanks, BMGF, for putting us straight on that one.

Other bleak predictions from UNICEF’s March 2020 report are now becoming visible. A UNICEF report back in January found that more than 39 billion in-school meals have been missed globally since the start of the Covid-19. A July report in South Africa’s Business Day found that half a million fewer children were in school than a year before. A World Bank study found that Covid-19 school lockdowns had increased dropouts across the board in Nigeria, especially in the 15-18 age group, increasing child marriage and child labour rates dramatically. And these impacts are not limited to poor countries — a recent study found that in the US, poor and minority children were much less likely to have had in-person lessons last year.

Why then has the BMGF suddenly sat up to take notice? Rather than an awakening of sanity — and humanity — it’s more likely to be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. I’m sure that many people at BMGF are appalled at these prospects — but for many poor children, their realisation comes far too late. A future with millions of impoverished, ill-equipped, cruelly treated and angry young people looks to be the ultimate result of these global lockdowns, which should give mainstream media figures cause for reflection.

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

J’accuse! Banned GP’s damning letter to the NHS chief

By Sally Beck | The Conservative Woman | July 29, 2021

WHEN the NHS suspended GP Dr Sam White without pay for daring to question the Covid narrative, they thought he would meekly disappear. Thankfully he didn’t, because the lack of debate from doctors over draconian measures the country has endured unnecessarily has been deafening. Instead, he took legal advice and his solicitor fired off a 23-page letter to the chief executive of the NHS, Sir Simon Stevens.

The colour must have drained from Stevens’s face when he opened it, even more so now as it has been made public and read over a million times. It began: ‘Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the Covid response.’

It was Dr White’s viral resignation video that had angered health service chiefs. He described how he had quit as a partner from his Hampshire general practice because of the harm Covid measures were causing. He was also being prevented from using readily available effective treatments for Covid patients and he could see the toll that isolation was taking on the elderly and vulnerable. He was distraught at the thought that children would be vaccinated for a disease from which they are not at risk, whereas the experimental vaccines could cause them catastrophic damage.

All licensed doctors have a revalidation process conducted every five years either by their employer, their contracted health authority or by their governing body the General Medical Council (GMC). This is to ensure they are fit to practise and to prevent rogue doctors, such as serial killer Harold Shipman, slipping under the radar. Dr White had already passed his revalidation by the GMC without comment in December 2020, where he raised his concerns about masks, not being able to prescribe safe and effective drugs and the inaccurate PCR test. He was reassessed in April after his video made the same points, and passed again. After it went viral, however, clocking up over a million views, he was suspended in June. The NHS had had enough and the same doctor who revalidated him effectively sacked him.

Dr White’s legal letter issued by the pjhlaw legal firm accuses HM Government, the executive board of the NHS, Sage, senior members of the civil service and the executive board of the Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of breaching common law (derived from hundreds of years of precedent rather than recent statute) obligations, and the seven Nolan principles governing public life. The most important of these is Selflessness, meaning that decisions should be taken solely in the public interest and not for financial gain. As we have seen nine billionaires created thanks to the pandemic, alongside millions of reports worldwide of death and injury post-vaccination for a disease with a 99.7 per cent recovery rate, I think it’s safe to say they’ve trampled all over Nolan.

One of Dr White’s main complaints is that the public were not given proper informed consent before vaccination. In the pop-up vaccination hubs set up in car parks, churches and cinemas, they were not asked about their medical history. This meant if there were contra-indications to receiving the vaccine, the vaccinator did not know the jab should not be given and the vaccinated had no clue they could suffer a serious, life-changing adverse event.

The letter adds: ‘It should be noted that those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry . . . It should be noted that Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 (£7) to over $200 (£145) in the space of 18 months.

‘Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna. Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation. The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded [£1million donation] by the Gates Foundation.’

The letter goes on to cover the unreliability of the PCR tests which are being abandoned by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in December; the fact that in most fatalities patients died ‘with’ Covid rather than ‘of’ Covid; the coercive introduction of vaccine passports for travel and work, and the unnecessary use of face masks.

The NHS has offloaded Dr White’s case to the GMC, who say they have had 18 complaints from unnamed doctors offended by his resignation video, but as usual in all cases of doctors subjected to a witch hunt because they questioned the narrative, none is from a patient.

Dr White said: ‘I have received 155 pages of complaints, which is quite distressing and upsetting, and they are just downright untrue. There is one complainant alleging I used the C-word when talking about a patient, which is something I never would have done.’

The professional standards department of NHS England and NHS Improvement are struggling to find concrete evidence for his alleged misdemeanours. About the only one they can prove is that he did not wear a face mask when walking around his GP surgery (although he wore one to consult with patients) and did not advise his elderly patients to wear them because they found them distressing. Departing from NHS directives is considered unacceptable and to them, raises serious concerns regarding Dr White’s fitness to practise. Forget the fact that it’s been reported widely that face masks can do more harm than good and are nothing more than theatre.

Incidentally, coming back to Dr Harold Shipman, who murdered more than 250 patients, he was not suspended without pay. Shipman, who was arrested in 1998, kept his c£70,000 salary from West Pennine health authority even after he was convicted and jailed for killing 15 patients. He didn’t lose it until two years after his arrest, when the GMC finally struck him off. By then, his family had received more than £100,000. In contrast, the NHS has now decided, on appeal, that Dr White can receive 90 per cent of one month’s earnings from his locum work until after the GMC decide his fate.

Dr White, who is now practising functional medicine, said: ‘Complete uncertainty about my financial future is really worrying.’ He has effectively been reduced to begging for money to live on and to fight his court case against Stevens et al. Two crowd-funders are out there which he hopes will help him do both until he gets back on his feet.

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/dr-sams-subsistence-funds

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/take-back-control/

July 30, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

And We Should Trust ‘The Science’ of the Pharma Industry?

By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 29.07.2021

The forever-head of the US NIAID, Tony Fauci, has repeatedly demanded that the public “trust the science” as he shifts his own science opinion from one positon to another. What is never mentioned in mainstream media in the West or almost anywhere in the world is the scientific record of the major global vaccine making pharmaceutical giants. In short, it is abysmal and alarming in the extreme. That alone should prohibit governments from pushing radical untested experimental injections on their populations without extensive long-term animal and other testing to assure their safety.

This past April as the US vaccination program was in high gear, the Biden chief covid adviser, 80-year-old Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) since 1984, announced that the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had decided to order a “pause” on giving the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine in order to examine reports of blood clots. It turned out that there were six reported blood clot cases of some seven million who then had had the J&J covid jab. Fauci in his press remarks declared, “one of the things that’s, I think, such a good thing about our system here, is that we’re ruled by the science, not by any other consideration.” There is good reason to question Fauci.

That was supposed to reassure people that the authorities were being ultra-careful with the experimental covid medications which, after all, never have been mass-tested on humans before and have only gotten “emergency use authorization,” provisional FDA approval. The FDA quickly lifted the pause as J&J agreed to print that its vaccine could cause blood clots.

Yet at the same time, rival vaccine makers, Pfizer and Moderna, both using a hyper-experimental genetic treatment known as mRNA, were not being paused by “the science” despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of alarming vaccine-related severe reactions, including official data of several thousand deaths from both, had been recorded by CDC data base, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

According to the CDC such “adverse” events, post-vaccine, include anaphylaxis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, and death. For the week of July 16 the CDC VAERS reported an alarming 9,125 reported deaths since late December from the COVID-19 vaccinations. Never in history have such high death totals been associated with any vaccine, yet the media is deafeningly silent about this.

Their dismal science record

The wording of Fauci is precise and deliberately manipulative. It suggests that there exists some fixed thing we can call “The Science,” like some Vatican religious dogma, whereas the real scientific method is one of continuous questioning, overturning past hypotheses with newly proven ones, adjusting. Yet when it comes to “Science,” the handful of giant vaccine makers, sometimes known as Big Pharma, a cartel not unlike Big Oil, have a record of fraud, deliberate doctoring of their own tests, as well as widespread bribing of doctors and medical officials to promote their various drugs despite “Science” results that contradict their assertions of safety. A look at the major global pharmaceutical giants is instructive.

J&J

We begin with the Johnson & Johnson Company of New Jersey. On July 21, 2021 J&J and three other smaller drug makers agreed to pay a staggering $26 billion damages to a group of US states for their role in causing America’s opioid epidemic. Of that J&J will pay $5 billion. The CDC estimates that use of the highly-addictive opioids as painkillers caused at least 500,000 deaths between 1999 and 2019. Johnson & Johnson is accused of pushing the deadly painkillers for excessive use and downplaying their addiction risks. They knew better.

The same J&J is in a huge legal battle for knowingly using a carcinogen in its famous baby powder. A 2018 Reuters investigation found J&J knew for decades that asbestos, a known carcinogen, lurked in its baby powder and other cosmetic talc products. The company is reportedly considering legally splitting its baby powder division into a small separate company that would then declare bankruptcy to avoid large payouts. The J&J covid vaccine, unlike that from Pfizer and Moderna, does not use mRNA genetic alteration.

The two global covid vaccine makers which have by far the largest market to date are the two being personally promoted by Fauci. These are from Pfizer in alliance with the tiny German BioNTech company under the name Comirnaty, and from the US biotech Moderna.

Pfizer

Pfizer, one of the world’s largest vaccine makers by sales, was founded in 1849 in the USA. It also has one of the most criminal records of fraud, corruption, falsification and proven damage. A 2010 Canadian study noted, “Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” That’s serious. Note that Pfizer has yet to make fully public details of its covid vaccine studies for external examination.

The list of Pfizer crimes has gotten longer since 2010. It is currently engaged in lawsuits related to charges its Zantac heartburn medication is contaminated with a cancer-causing substance. As well, Pfizer received the biggest drug-related fine in US history in 2009 as part of a $2.3 Billion plea deal for mis-promoting medicines Bextra and Celebrex and paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Pfizer pleaded guilty to the felony of marketing four drugs including Bextra “with the intent to defraud or mislead.” They were forced to withdraw their arthritis painkiller Bextra in the USA and EU for causing heart attacks, strokes, and serious skin disease.

Clearly in a move to boost revenue, Pfizer illegally paid doctors kickbacks for “off-label” use of more than one of its drug which resulted in patients being injured or killed. Among them were Bextra (valdecoxib); Geodon (ziprasidone HCl), an atypical antipsychotic; Zyvox (linezolid), an antibiotic; Lyrica (pregabalin), a seizure medication; its famous Viagra (sildenafil), an erectile dysfunction drug; and Lipitor (atorvastatin), a cholesterol drug.

In another court trial, Pfizer subsidiaries were forced to pay $142 million and release company documents that showed it was illegally marketing gabapentin for off-label use. “Data revealed in a string of U.S. lawsuits indicates the drug was promoted by the drug company as a treatment for pain, migraines and bipolar disorder – even though it wasn’t effective in treating these conditions and was actually toxic in certain cases, according to the Therapeutics Initiative, an independent drug research group at the University of British Columbia. The trials forced the company to release all of its studies on the drug, including the ones it kept hidden.”

In 2004 Pfizer subsidiary Warner-Lambert was forced to pay $430 to settle criminal charges and civil liability arising from its fraudulent marketing practices with respect to Neurontin, its brand for the drug gabapentin. Originally developed for the treatment of epilepsy, Neurontin was illegally promoted off-label for the treatment of neurological pain, and in particular for migraine and bipolar disorder – even though it wasn’t effective in treating these conditions and was actually toxic in some cases. Neurontin for unapproved uses made up some 90% of the $2.7 billion in sales in 2003.

A New York Times report disclosed in 2010 that Pfizer “… paid about $20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals in the United States for consulting and speaking on its behalf in the last six months of 2009.” It paid another $15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials. In the US legal practice it is seldom that corporate executives actually doing the criminal deeds are prosecuted. The result is that court fines can be treated as “business costs” in this cynical milieu. In eight years of repeated malfeasance through 2009, Pfizer accumulated just under $3 billion in fines and civil penalties, about a third of one year’s net revenues.

In 2020 as its covid vaccine was in development, Pfizer paid $13,150,000 in lobbying Congress and officials in Washington among others. Also notable is the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation own shares of both Pfizer and their partner in the leading mRNA vaccine, BioNTech of Germany.

Moderna

The third covid vaccine producer today with FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is Moderna of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It has yet to be sued for illegal practices unlike J&J or Pfizer. But that fact is likely only because before its EUA for its mRNA experimental vaccine, in its ten years existence since 2010 it had failed to get FDA approval to market a single medicine, despite repeated failed attempts. However Moderna has a red neon sign that reads “conflict of interest” that should give pause.

Moderna and Fauci’s NIAID have collaborated on development of vaccines using Moderna’s mRNA platform and NIAID of Fauci on coronaviruses including MERS, since at least November, 2015. On January 13, 2020, before the first case of a supposed Wuhan, China “novel coronavirus” was even detected in the United States, Fauci’s NIAID and Moderna signed an updated cooperation agreement which described them as co-owners of a mRNA based coronavirus and that they had finalized a sequence for mRNA-1273, the vaccine now being given to millions for supposedly averting the novel coronavirus. That means that Fauci’s NIAID and perhaps Fauci personally (it’s allowed in the US) stood to reap huge financial benefits from emergency approval of the Moderna jab, yet Fauci has never admitted to the conflict publicly when he was Trump corona adviser, nor as Biden’s.

Ten days later on January 23, 2020 Moderna announced it was granted funding by CEPI, a vaccine fund created by Bill Gates’ foundation along with Davos WEF among others, to develop an mRNA vaccine for the Wuhan virus.

Moderna was created by a venture capitalist, Noubar Afeyan along with Harvard professor Timothy A. Springer, and others. In 2011 Afeyan recruited French businessman and former Eli Lilly executive Stephane Bancel as CEO of the new Moderna. Despite having no medical or science degree nor any experience running a drug development operation, Bancel lists himself as co-patent holder for a hundred patents of Moderna tied to the different vaccines. Beginning in 2013 the tiny Moderna was receiving grants from the Pentagon to develop its mRNA technology. As of 2020 just prior to its receiving emergency use authorization from the US Government FDA, fully 89% of Moderna revenues were from US Government grants. This is hardly an experienced company yet it holds the fate of millions in its hands. As Fauci says, “Trust the Science.”

In February 2016, an editorial in Nature magazine criticized Moderna for not publishing any peer-reviewed papers on its technology, unlike most other emerging and established biotech companies. The company remains ultra-secretive. That same year, 2016 Moderna got $20 million from the Gates Foundation for vaccine development using mRNA.

Up to its receiving EUA approval for its covid mRNA product in December 2020 Moderna had only made losses since its founding. Then curiously, following a March 2020 personal meeting with then-President Trump where Bancel told the president Moderna could have a vaccine ready in a matter of months Moderna luck changed.

On May 15, Trump announced creation of Operation Warp Seed to rollout a COVID-19 vaccine by December. The head of the Presidential group was a 30-year R&D veteran of the large UK drug firm GSK, Moncef Slaoui. In 2017 Slaoui had resigned from GSK and joined the board of none other than Moderna. Under Slaoui’s Warp Speed, some $22 billion of US taxpayer money was thrown at different vaccine makers. Moderna was a prime recipient, a brazen conflict of interest but nobody seemed to care. Slaoui funneled some $2 billion in government funds to his old company, Moderna, to develop the mRNA covid vaccine. Only under public criticism did Slaoui sell his stock in Moderna, making millions in profit from Moderna’s role as a covid vaccine leading candidate. Shortly after resigning at the end of the Trump presidency, Slaoui was fired by his old firm GSK from a company subsidiary following charges of sexual harassment of a female employee.

In February 2020 Trump Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) to exempt Moderna, Pfizer, J&J and any future covid makers from any and all liability arising from damage or death caused by their vaccines for the Wuhan coronavirus. The legal protection lasts until 2024. If the vaccines are so good and safe, why is such a measure needed? Azar was former head of the US drug giant Eli Lilly. There are some serious questions that must be raised openly regarding the vaccine makers who are now pushing experimental highly controversial gene-edited formulations in human experiments.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University.

July 30, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Conflict of Interest in WHO Recommendation Against Ivermectin

By Andrew Bannister | Trial Site News | June 27, 2021

All dangerous diseases are best treated early. A major failure of the global COVID-19 strategy has been to wait a week for the disease to become dangerous, when breathing becomes a problem. Early treatment of COVID, even for those with mild symptoms, prevents later hospitalization. There are several early treatment drugs showing promise but ivermectin leads the pack regarding safety, effectiveness and price. Unfortunately, the biggest players in Western mainstream media are members of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). The TNI is a story for another day but it’s remarkable that big media companies barely report that they have agreed to promote global vaccination and to make sure any “disinformation myths are stopped in their tracks”[i]. Unfortunately, as a result early treatment seems to be seen as a disinformation myth and is not mentioned. Early treatment is vital in treating serious diseases and COVID-19 is no exception.

Considering the human and economic cost, the avoidance of early treatment with a very safe, effective and off-patent drug is a criminal tragedy of immense proportions and a winning lottery ticket for some pharmaceutical companies that are designing and selling novel patented drugs that could not compete with ivermectin in a free market. Mercks’ molnupiravir, for instance, is seeking an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA and “Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government.”[ii]

Ivermectin doesn’t need an EUA because it passed trials in 1986. It just needs to be recommended to treat COVID-19. However, if ivermectin was officially recognized as an effective treatment, it would legally prevent molnupiravir’s EUA until it passes trials and thus delay or endanger the $1.2 billion deal. An aggravating factor is the fact that molnupiravir (EIDD-2801) could cause harmful genetic mutations. [iii]

In the face of a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, government authorities and international organizations have traditionally looked to the World Health Organization (WHO) for guidance – trusting that the WHO is free of commercial interests. Originally funded entirely by member states, the organization now receives less than 20% of its budget from these states and the rest from donors[iv] with their own financial and strategic agendas. Margret Chan, the previous Director General of the WHO, said in 2015: “I have to take my hat and go around the world to beg for money and when they give us the money [it is] highly linked to their preferences, what they like. It may not be the priority of the WHO, so if we do not solve this, we are not going to be as great as we were”. [v]

Veteran journalist Robert Parsons explains that “the Smallpox eradication program was funded entirely by donors. That may have led to the problem that for special projects it [the WHO] has to raise the funding. But the private sector is unlikely to get involved unless it shows profit … Consequently, there is little independent public health research”.[vi]  Since then, the undue financial influence of private stakeholders has further grown at the WHO. Donations come with caveats so that the organization is compromised on a number of issues that involve the interests of its donors.

In 2010, for instance, after the H1N1 flu pandemic, an investigative inquiry by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that “key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as ‘conspiracy theories’.” [vii] These advisors managed to convince the UK government to spend more than $7 billion on a vaccine that was never needed.[viii]

As of 2021, conflicts of interest such as these continue to be a problem – the undue influence of private stakeholders being a prime example. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is the second largest funder of the WHO after the USA. Gates, however, also founded and funds The Vaccine Alliance (GAVI). In the period 2018–19, their combined voluntary contribution to the WHO was 27%[ix] greater than the US voluntary contribution, making Gates’ influence pervasive. As funds by the Gates conglomerate are earmarked for specific projects, the WHO doesn’t decide how the respective money is spent, Gates does.

In addition to the undue financial influence exerted by the BMGF, there is also an overlap of personnel between the WHO and Gates’ endeavors. Tedros Adhanom, the current WHO Director General, has previously served on the board of GAVI and as the chair of the Gates funded Global Fund.[x] Arguably, he is still influenced by his previous employer’s ideology and financial power.

Gates’ priorities have become the WHO’s. The main priority of Gates is global COVID-19 vaccination, not public health systems providing early treatment. He has been pushing vaccination onto the global agenda since 2012. The power of Gates Foundation funding has dictated a drive towards vaccinations and away from other essential public health measures, a move which has been criticized for years by international NGOs involved in the health and development field.

Generally, Gates also believes that capitalism is more efficient than public health agencies when it comes to reaching his goals in the area of global health.[xi] Capitalism is usually more efficient than government but it values profits above people. Accordingly, Gates as well as the pharmaceutical companies his foundation is invested in and whose products he is pushing globally are making billions from their endeavors. Morgan Stanley believes that Pfizer, for example, could earn $100 billion from vaccines developed with public tax money from the US, Germany and other places in the next five years.[xii] Pfizer is partnered with BioNTech. The Gates Foundation has investments in both companies, putting $55 million into BioNTech alone in September 2019. The Gates Foundation also owns shares in Merck which is positioning the drug molnupiravir on the market hoping to make billions from it.

When it comes to ivermectin – in its off-patent form, Gates is funding work on a patentable, injectable form.[xiii] Organizations tied to Gates have taken an antagonistic stance thus far. Notably, GAVI has been going all out by running paid google ads against the use of ivermectin in COVID-19.[xiv]

Given the significant financial and ideological conflict of interest of its main donor, the WHO recommendation on early treatment with an off-patent, highly efficient, safe and cheap drug such as ivermectin needs to be critically examined. In the WHO ivermectin guideline, despite showing a reduction of deaths by 80%,[xv] the organization puzzlingly recommends against ivermectin’s use.

The WHO’s guideline document is “based on a living systematic review and network meta-analysis from investigators at McMaster University”.[xvi] McMaster University (including any of its direct affiliates) should have excused itself from conducting the guideline, given it has several objective conflicts of interest when it comes to ivermectin. For one, McMaster itself is designing and producing second generation COVID-19 vaccines.[xvii] It intends to produce hundreds of thousands of doses. It is likely that these experimental products would receive greater scrutiny if there is a viable safe prophylactic and treatment option for COVID-19. Secondly, McMaster University, like the WHO itself, receives millions in funding from the Gates Foundation. Additionally, McMaster, again like the WHO, shares personnel with the Gates Foundation.

Edward Mills, for example, is both a McMaster associate professor and the clinical trial advisor for the Gates Foundation. In addition he has recently been appointed as the principal investigator of the Gates-funded Together Trial that is currently evaluating repurposed drugs such as ivermectin for their use in COVID-19[xviii]. Asked for comment, Mills denied that the Gates Foundation was having any “say on the conduct of the trial” even though he himself is it’s principal investigator and employed by the Gates Foundation. As past experiences show, no product should ever be tested in a trial funded by those gaining or losing financially or ideologically from it. Thus, ivermectin trials are best not done by anyone with a financial and ideological investment in competing drugs and vaccines. No reputable organization or government agency should be basing their opinion of ivermectin on trials conducted by the Gates Foundation or any other party with a conflict of interest.

The recently announced Oxford University trial of Ivermectin shares a similar conflict as Oxford is profiting from the sales of the AstraZeneca vaccine and questions have been raised about the proposed trial possibly sabotaging the result by admitting elderly people already sick for 14 days but limiting the Ivermectin dose to three treatments.

Unsurprisingly, in a recent interview, Edward Mills seemed to be downplaying the effect of ivermectin. “The evidence on prophylaxis use of ivermectin is not very convincing”, Mills doubts, even though ivermectin is not being evaluated as a prophylactic in his own trial. Data from different clinical trials clearly shows that ivermectin is exceptionally effective, specifically as a prophylactic. Bryant et al. (2021) who analyzed the existing data from clinical trials according to conservative Cochrane meta-analysis standards – a gold-standard in science – found that “ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86%” with the best-dosed study reaching an effectiveness of 91%.[xviv] There have been several studies that show that the regularity of the prophylactic dose is important with a weekly dose being more effective than bimonthly. Edward Mills curiously doesn’t find the prophylactic data interesting. The big money is not in running generic repurposed drug trials but in pharmaceutical company trials fighting for market share.

Mills also suggests ivermectin might be efficient as a treatment but emphasizes the need for other drug interventions. “I am very optimistic that it will – it will just be one component of the interventions that we need.“[xix] While other components can be useful additions, downplaying the effect of ivermectin is not warranted. An expert meta-analysis by Karale et al. (2021) including researchers from the renowned Mayo Clinic comes to the conclusion that when given early in mild or moderate COVID-19, ivermectin reduces mortality by 90%.[xx] The findings further corroborate the results of the scientific review conducted by Kory et al. (2021) that has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics and shows ivermectin to be significantly effective in the treatment of COVID-19.[xxi]

Given the conflicts of interest of McMaster University as well as the dubious interrelations between McMaster personnel and private stakeholders such as the Gates Foundation and other industry-related companies, the WHO should not have accepted McMaster’s involvement in the guidelines on ivermectin. Further, the WHO should ensure that no undue influence is exerted by its own donors – a task it has not yet been able to achieve.

Questions sent to the WHO Ethics Office, asking for clarity about its recommendation against the use of ivermectin, were answered. However the organization refused to supply minutes of the meeting on ivermectin. It further declares that no interview will be granted. It does “not consider an assessment of ivermectin for prophylactic use in COVID-19 to be warranted”. It also does not consider trials by drug companies to be “biased per se” even though major pharmaceutical corporations have been repeatedly convicted of substantial fraud, manipulation and concealment of evidence and paying billions of dollars in fines. There was also an intimidatory confidentially clause in the WHO correspondence despite the author stating that they are writing about ivermectin.

The WHO needs to prove that it followed a scientific and ethical process in its recommendation against the use of ivermectin. Public trust is crucial to beat the pandemic. We cannot continue to have the Gates foundation determining the WHO decisions on Ivermectin given the large conflict of interest. The minutes of the meeting in which the recommendation against ivermectin was taken need to be made public. The public needs to be told and shown invoices with regards to who paid for the steps that informed the WHO ivermectin guideline. The conflicts of interest of major WHO donors and the employer (McMaster University) of the scientists that are responsible for the guideline need to be made transparent. Without this, the recommendation against the use of ivermectin, remains mired in suspicion of corporate overreach.

Few incidences make the general problem more apparent than the following: The WHO’s Chief Scientist, Soumya Swaminathan, was on Twitter recently warning Indian nationals in the midst of a deadly COVID-19 wave not to take ivermectin citing Merck marketing material.[xxii] As a reminder, the pharmaceutical giant Merck is hoping to make billions with its potentially mutagenic molnupiravir which won’t happen if off-patent ivermectin is a standard of care. Swaminathan’s statement went against the official Indian recommendation in favor of ivermectin issued by the most highly regarded health association in India after the country had been confronted with a new COVID-19 variant and regions were seeing improvement with early Ivermectin treatment. In the aftermath, the Indian Bar Association served Swaminathan a legal notice for spreading dangerous disinformation and causing a significant number of deaths by discouraging the use of a life-saving drug.[xxiii] Swaminathan’s tweet has since been deleted. The legal notice for aggravated offences against humanity concerning ivermectin has by now been extended to the WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom.[xxiv]

The once noble idea of a global public health system working for mankind’s best interests has been replaced by an organization largely driven by the financial and ideological interests of private stakeholders. This is not a new phenomenon. International groups have long called for a reform of the WHO. In a global pandemic, the disastrous consequences of these pervasive organizational issues become even more apparent.

Distinguished scientists and frontline physicians from all over the world without conflicts of interest have called for the immediate use of ivermectin against COVID-19. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and expert meta-analyses performed according to the highest standards of science have proven ivermectin’s effectiveness and reaffirmed its safety. Yet, a front of organizations including a significantly compromised WHO as well as wealthy private stakeholders with financial and ideological conflicts of interest have blocked the usage of this life-saving medication. Some observers have called this a crime against humanity which should be subjected to public scrutiny and an official criminal investigation. Ivermectin, meanwhile, should be used immediately to save lives as it has already been done successfully in a number of places worldwide.

[i] https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation

[ii] https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-with-u-s-government-for-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-candidate-for-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/

[iii] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/emails-offer-look-whistleblower-charges-cronyism-behind-potential-covid-19-drug

[iv] https://www.who.int/about/funding/assessed-contributions

[v] https://vimeo.com/ondemand/trustwho/260921911

[vi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBz5FR8Mf5c

[vii] ] https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2912.full

[viii] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/jun/04/swine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical

[ix] http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/overview/vcs

[x] https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/08/bill-gates-global-health-policy/

[xi] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021577629748680000

[xii] https://www.businessinsider.co.za/pfizer-could-sell-96-billion-dollars-covid-vaccines-morgan-stanley-2021-5?r=US&IR=T

[xiii] https://trialsitenews.com/gates-foundation-funded-french-research-group-commences-ivermectin-clinical-trial-targeting-covid-19/

[xiv] https://trialsitenews.com/my-favorite-conversation-starters/

[xv] https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/5058/section/67421

[xvi] WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19 Living Guideline. 31.3.2021.

[xvii] https://urbanicity.com/hamilton/city/2021/02/mcmaster-university-is-developing-two-covid-19-vaccine-candidates/

[xviii] https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/mcmaster-researchers-leading-international-study-to-test-three-widely-available-drugs-for-early-covid-19-treatment/

[xviv] https://osf.io/k37ft/ (peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the American Journal of Therapeutics)

[xix] https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/whats-the-deal-with-ivermectin-and-covid/

[xx] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.30.21256415v1

[xxi]https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

[xxii] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/who-warns-against-use-of-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19/articleshow/82546558.cms

[xxiii] https://trialsitenews.com/indian-bar-association-serves-legal-notice-upon-dr-soumya-swaminathan-the-chief-scientist-who/

[xxiv] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dZLKvOib6PjhEGXOLIdGod2ZQNGPnkoW/view?usp=sharing

June 27, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What I Know and Don’t Know about SARS-CoV-2 Virus

By Edward J Curtin | June 19, 2021

After fifteen months of assiduous reading, study, observation, and research, I have come to some conclusions about what is called COVID-19.  I would like to emphasize that I have done this work obsessively since it seemed so important.  I have consulted information and arguments across all media, corporate and alternative, academic, medical, books, etc.  I have consulted with researchers around the world.  I have read the websites of the CDC, the World Health Organization, and government and non-government health organizations.  In other words, I have left no stone unturned, despite the overt or covert political leanings of the sources.  I have done this as a sociologist and writer, not as a medical doctor, although many of my sources have been medical doctors and medical studies.

My succinct conclusions follow without links to sources since I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything but just stating for the public record what I have concluded.  Life is short.  I am going to say it now.

  • I know that vast numbers of people have been hypnotized by fear, threats, and bribes to accept the corporate mainstream media’s version of COVID-19. I have concluded that many millions are moving in a trance state and do not know this. They have been induced into this state by a well-organized, very sophisticated propaganda campaign that has drawn on the human fear of death and disease.  Those behind this have no doubt studied the high incidence of hypochondriasis in the general population and the fear of an invisible “virus” in societies where belief in God and the spiritual invisible has been replaced by faith in science.  Knowing their audience well, they have concocted a campaign of fear and confusion to induce obedience.
  • I do not know but suspect that those who have been so hypnotized tend to be mainly members of the middle to the upper classes, those who have invested so much belief in the system. This includes the highly schooled.
  • I know that to lockdown hundreds of millions of healthy people, to insist they wear useless masks, to tell them to avoid human contacts, to destroy the economic lives of regular people have created vast suffering that was meant to teach people a lesson about who was in control and that they better revise their understanding of human relations to adjust to the new digital unreality that the producers of this masquerade are trying to put in place of flesh and blood, face to face human reality.
  • I know that the PCR test invented by Kary Mullis cannot test for the alleged virus or any virus and therefore all the numbers of cases and deaths are based on nothing. They are conjured out of thin air in a massive act of magic. I know that the belief that it can so test began with the unscientific PCR Corona protocol created by Christian Drosten in Germany in January 2020 that became the standard method for testing for SARS-CoV-2 worldwide.  I am sure this was preplanned and part of a high-level conspiracy.  This protocol set the cycle threshold (amplification) at 45 which could only result in false positive results.  These were then called cases: An act of fraud on a massive scale.
  • I do not know if the alleged virus has ever been isolated in the sense of being purified or detached from everything else aside from being cultured in a lab. Therefore I do not know if the virus exists.
  • I know that the experimental mRNA “vaccines” that are being pushed on everyone are not traditional vaccines but dangerous experiments whose long-term consequences are unknown. And I know that Moderna says its messenger RNA (mRNA) non-vaccine “vaccine” functions “like an operating system on a computer” and that Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, says that the lipid nanoparticles from the injections travel throughout the body and settle in large quantities in multiple organs where the spike protein, being biologically active, can cause massive damage and that the FDA has known this. Additionally, I know that tens of thousands of people have suffered adverse effects from these injections and many thousands have died from them and that these figures are greatly underestimated due to the reporting systems.  I know that with this number of casualties in the past these experimental shots would have been stopped long ago or never started.  That they have not, therefore, convinces me that a radically evil agenda is under way whose goal is harm not health because those in charge know what I know and much more.
  • I do not know where this alleged virus originated, if it exists.
  • I know that from the start of this crisis, there was a concerted effort across the world to deny access to proven effective treatments such as hydroxychloroquine, steroids, ivermectin in a planned effort to vaccinate as many people as possible. This alone reveals an agenda centered not on health but on getting as many people as possible to submit to being vaccinated and controlled. Social control is the name of this deadly game.
  • I know that those pushing these vaccines – The World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc. – have a long history of wanting to drastically reduce the world’s population and that their promotion of eugenics under various names is very well known. I am convinced that the totally untested mRNA-type “gene therapy” is the key to their plan for population reduction.
  • I do not know if they will succeed.
  • I know they must be resisted.
  • I do not know why so many good people cannot see through this evil. I can only attribute it to having been seduced by a massive hypnotic propaganda campaign that has appealed to their deepest fears and will result in those fears being realized because they thought they were free. It is a great tragedy.
  • I know that all the statistics about cases and deaths “from” COVID-19 have been manipulated to create a fake pandemic. One of the most obvious proofs of this is the alleged disappearance of the flu and deaths from influenza. Only someone in a trance could fail to understand the absurd logic in the argument that this was the result of mask wearing when at the same time the air-born COVID-19 spread like wildfire until that stopped precipitously in January 2021 when a tiny number of people had been vaccinated.
  • I know there has been barely any excess mortality throughout all this.
  • I do not know where it will all end but hope against hope the growing opposition to this fraud will grow and defeat it despite the organized censorship that is underway against dissenting opinions. I know that when organized censorship on this scale takes place those behind it are afraid of the revelation of the truth. A simple understanding of history confirms this.
  • I know that the temporary reprieve the authorities have granted to their subjects will be followed by further restrictions on fundamental freedoms, the corona virus lockdowns will likely return, “vaccine” boosters will be promoted, and the World Economic Forum’s push for a Great Reset with a Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to the marriage of artificial intelligence, cyborgs, digital technology, and biology with the USA and other countries continuing to slip into a new form of fascist control unless people across the world stand up and resist in great numbers. I am heartened by signs that this resistance is growing.
  • Finally, I know if the authoritarian forces win the immediate battle, someone will write a book with a title like that of Milton Mayer’s classic, They Thought They Were Free. It will be censored. Perhaps it will first be shared via samizdat.  But in the end, after much suffering and death, the truth about this evil agenda will prevail and there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
  • We are in a spiritual war for the soul of the world.

June 19, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates’s money and his influence on British universities

This the fourth and final part of a series

By Karen Harradine | The Conservative Woman | May 20, 2021

My series on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (GF) has revealed the unparalleled influence one man, Bill Gates, has over:

·      the WHO and global health policy; 

·      British public health and Covid-19 policy, through the Gates Foundation’s funding of a number of powerful and interconnected scientific institutions, charities and companies and their personnel crossover with the government’s science advisers;  

·     The Government’s appointed science advisory bodies Sage and Nervtag through the many members and subcommittee members who are employed by academic institutions funded by GF over many years. 

This is only a partial picture of the long reach of Bill Gates into our scientific institutions. On Monday I focused on three GF-funded universities which have informed Sage on doomsday Covid-19 modelling: Imperial College London (ICL), Warwick University and the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine (LSHTM). There are many more academic universities and centres which have taken the GF dollar, including those involved in the research and manufacture of vaccines, who between them set parameters of approved research and gave their research leads significant clout.

They are thus able ‘to ignore or cherry pick science and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates’, as  the executive editor of the BMJ Kamran Abbasi explained it recently. This toxic combination of scientific bias by commission and omission, exacerbated by GF funding, has led to the shutting down of science debate, to active censorship and even to dissemination of scientific untruths, as has been reported elsewhere in TCW pages.

Many scientists and academics have been worryingly silent about the government’s anti-science response to Covid-19. The few who have spoken out have been scorned and smeared by Sage and their nodding dogs, the MSM. Can this culture of silence can be traced back to the extensive GF funding of British universities?

Let’s take Britain’s pre-eminent universities, Oxford and Cambridge, first.

The GF’s funding of Oxford University goes back 21 years, to a first $4.7million grant for malaria and global health research in 2000.  Its giving has risen exponentially since then. In 2019, the GF gave Oxford $40million, including $9.6million for vaccine development. In 2020 it gave $10.8million, including $310,970 to improve understanding of Covid-19. To date this year, Oxford has received $152,553 from the GF.

Oxford University is the site of the Covid-19 Recovery trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY), promoted as the world’s largest randomised clinical trial. The trial’s chief investigator, Professor Peter Horby, is a key member of Sage and Nervtag.

The Recovery trial is funded by the Wellcome Trust, the GF, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the ‘Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator’, the latter being a collaboration between the GF, Wellcome Trust and MasterCard. In March 2020, Oxford University was one of three institutions to share $20million from the GF via its Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

Professor Horby’s co-investigator at the Recovery Trial, Wei Shen Lim, is also a Nervtag member and chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. 

The deputy investigator of the Recovery trial, Professor Martin Landray, has further links to the GF.  He is a Lead at the UK Biobank, which is partnered with the Wellcome Trust and also a Lead of the NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre at Oxford University.

In April 2017, the GF gave the NIHR Centre funding to study antibiotic resistance in tuberculosis, and a further grant in September 2017 to study typhoid vaccines.

Further funding was provided in September 2020 to research treatments for Covid-19 in care homes. 

The NIHR Centre is funded as well by the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, as noted above itself a collaboration between the GF, Wellcome Trust and MasterCard.

In March 2020, the Wellcome Trust gave £7.5million via the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator to see if hydroxychloroquineand chloroquine ‘can prevent the spread of Covid-19’ (not treat it, strangely). During the same year the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator also gave $9.5million to the University of Washington to study the effects of hydroxychloroquine on Covid-19.

Professor Horby has sold the Recovery Trial as a success story, but other scientists have disputed this. Last June, hard on the heels of the retraction by the Lancet of its now-notorious paper purporting to show that hydroxychloroquine not only did not help Covid-19 patients, but actually made them worse, came news of the termination of the hydroxychloroquine ‘arm’ of the UK’s Recovery clinical trials.

As reported by Edmund Fordham in TCW, this ‘huge embarrassment was conveniently overlain by news from Oxford University that sorry, hydroxychloroquine really isn’t any good’. So even if the Lancet paper was fake, ‘a political hit job’ as one American doctor had it, Oxford’s clinical trial showed the same result.

But the trial design had already been savaged within days of launch; it was never likely to help very sick late-stage Covid-19 patients and what Professor Landray found himself struggling to explain in an interview were ‘the very heavy doses of the drug that were given – 2400 mg in the first 24 hours, a ‘dose fit for a gorilla’ as one critic had it.

Needless to say Professors Horby and Landray glossed over the inadequacies of this particular trial and quickly dismissed the use of hydroxychloroquine, vowing to concentrate on ‘more promising drugs’. And the possibility of a cheap and easy early treatment for Covid-19, from re-purposed generic drugs, especially hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalisation, was trashed.

Probing alleged conflicts of interest, France Soir noted the co-authorship of Professor Horby on papers reporting trials of Gilead’s remdesivir (there was no benefit in mortality), an agreement between his department and AstraZeneca for development of Oxford’s vaccine candidate, and generous funding from the GF. Curiously, there is a connection too between Professor Landray’s interests in Big Data and Gilead, a pharmaceutical company which was in merger talks with AstraZeneca last year. Vaccines are profitable, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are not. No wonder the GF invests so heavily in the organisations which research, fund and manufacture vaccines, rather than pursuing investment in better constructed early treatment trials.

A further cluster of Sage members, Professors Dame Angela McLean, Michael Parker, Gideon Henderson, Charlotte Deane and Dr Laura Merson, all work at Oxford University.

SPI-M-O members Drs Thomas Crellen, Joshua Firth and Professor Deirdre Hollingsworth are likewise all employed at Oxford University too.

Cambridge University’s GF’s funding started with an initial grant of $8.1million for agricultural development in 2012. The GF awarded a grant of $998,891 in 2019 to fund research into pneumonia, and $420,000 in 2020 for global education.

More significantly, Cambridge is the site of the Cambridge Science Park, another GF-funded venture. In May 2020, GF and Google Ventures gave $45million to Cerevance, a pharmaceutical company based at Cambridge Science Park.

AstraZeneca is opening its new R&D centre at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus this month. The vaccine giant is supported by the GF, although no details are available on funding. Cambridge University and Imperial College London, both GF-funded institutions, collaborate extensively with AstraZeneca. Sage member Professor Kamlesh Khunti has received grants from AstraZeneca and has also worked as a consultant and speaker for the company.

The Wellcome Trust is also involved in scientific research at Cambridge. Together with the Medical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, it awarded the Cambridge-based Institute of Metabolic Science £24million in 2013. Professor Julia Gog of Sage is employed at Cambridge University, as are Nervtag member Professor Ravindra Gupta and Independent Sage member Dr Tolullah Oni.

Professor Daniela DeAngelis and Dr Joshua Blake, members of SP-I-M, also work at Cambridge University.

The GF has also funded University College London (UCL), giving its first $25.2million in 2006 for HIV research. UCL was granted a total of $10.8million in 2019 and $484,000 in 2020, including $144,000 to research vaccines last March. The GF has committed funding from 2020-2023 to study postpartum haemorrhage. UCL also collaborates with the GF and the Wellcome Trust on a research project called Global Health. 

Sage members Professors Dame Anne Johnson, Andrew Hayward and Alan Penn work at UCL.

Professor Susan Michie is the Director of the Centre for Behaviour Change at UCL and sits on both Sage and Independent Sage. Her fellow Independent Sage members Professors Anthony Costello, Christina Pagel, Deenan Pillay, Ann Phoenix and Robert West all work at UCL in some capacity.

Other less prominent academic institutions, such as the University of Southampton, are also beneficiaries of the GF’s vast financing. In 2009, Southampton received $100,000 for scientific research from the GF, and was also given specific grants of $335,800 in 2014, $3.6million in 2015 and $476,214 in 2020 for vaccine research. Sage member, Professor Guy Poppy, is employed at this university, as is Professor Lucy Yardley, a member of both Sage and SP-I-MO.

The UWE Bristol also has connections with the GF, the latter funding its climate change project called Robial. Peter Case, a UWE Bristol Law Professor, wrote a report on malaria for the GF.  Sage member, Professor Jonathan Benger, is employed at the UWE Bristol.

The GF has donated to a multitude of universities unconnected to Sage too, like Liverpool University, giving them a total of over $4million between 2010-2020, with the largest grant being $1.5million in 2010 for pneumonia research.

The GF also funds British charities. The Dementia Discovery Fund, part of Alzheimer’s Research UK, received $50million from the GF in 2017. A small science company in Wales, the Sure Chill Company, was given £1.4million in 2014.

The GF has also invested in the private security firm Serco, buying 3.74 million shares worth $6.6million. This collaboration is not as bizarre as it first seems. Serco is one of the companies hired by the British government to run its Test and Trace system and is likely to make up to £410million from a contract it has with the Department of Health and Social Care.

It seems that no corner of British industry lies untouched by the long reach of the GF. As my research shows, it certainly seems to be the largest funder of British science, giving Gates influence and control exceeding all others, with an ownership of scientists and scientific research as a critical dimension of his global control agenda.

The level of dominance which Gates holds over British science companies, institutions and universities is more than concerning.

Could the combined anti-science and harmful responses to Covid-19 by members of Sage, Independent Sage and Nervtag have anything to do with their multitude of connections to the GF? This is certainly jackpot time for these GF-funded scientists and academics, some of whom are having their moment in the sun pontificating on television to the supine masses. Fame is an addictive drug.

It’s not just the Tories have turned into Gates’s lapdogs. A controlling group of scientists and academics, with unaccountable power over our lives, have too.

Science and scientists that question the new groupthink or fall outside the parameters of the GF approved research have little chance. Neither do we while Bill Gates remains omnipotent.

May 20, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Friends and allies: The Gates Foundation and British scientists

By Karen Harradine | Conservative Woman | May 17, 2021

This is the third article in a series

IN THE previous instalments I explored the extraordinary hold Bill Gates has over global health policy and the spread of its influence right into the heart of British public health policy via the funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (GF) of science businesses, foundations and public bodies through a complex web of interconnection and crossover of personnel. 

This, however, is not the sum total of the GF’s reach into the world of British science and public health. It has been funding British university science departments, projects, and individuals for more than two decades. The topics involved include research into and manufacturing of vaccines.

No government-appointed science committee has influenced public health policy as much as Sage. Many of its members, who cross over with Independent Sage and Nervtag and are already somewhat compromised by connections to the GF-funded GlaxoSmithKline and Wellcome Foundation, are also employees of universities and colleges which have received massive GF grants and, in some cases, work in partnership with them. Three of Sage’s members, Professors Graham Medley, Andrew Rambaut and Matt Keeling, are individual recipients of grants from the GF.

Earlier this year a Sage subcommittee, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, Operational sub-group (SPI-M-O), commissioned three university departments to conduct modelling research, a scaremongering exercise that was to be the basis of Sage advice to the Government. 

Readers may remember the three modelling papers produced by Imperial College London (ICL), Warwick University and the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine (LSHTM) which received considerable press attention at the end of March, and their dramatic simultaneous warnings of a ‘third’ Covid-19 wave and new lethal variants; cautioning (yet again) how this will put the NHS under stress. All recommended stricter lockdowns, Test and Trace and, tellingly, booster vaccines.

SPI-M-O had assigned each university a specific task: ICL’s was ‘Evaluating England’s Roadmap out of Lockdown’, Warwick’s to produce ‘Road Map Scenarios and Sensitivity’ and LSHTM’s to make an ‘Interim roadmap assessment: prior to Step 2’.

Promoting the ICL paper was none other than the multi-tasking Sage member Professor Neil Ferguson, co-founder and Principal Investigator of the Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (MRC GIDA) at Imperial College, a centre that works closely with the GF, the Global Fund and Gavi, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health at ICL, a Director and Adviser at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and a recipient of cloud computing time from Microsoft and Amazon for Covid-19 modelling.

Notorious for churning out alarmist modelling and for advocating Chinese lockdown policy, in this latest paper Ferguson turned his attention to vaccines. It said that current vaccines on their own would be ineffective in keeping new variants under control. A few weeks later, though neither a virologist nor immunologist, he was insisting on the necessity of vaccine boosters. 

Warwick’s paper emphasised the ‘danger’ of new variants to an even greater degree than the ICL paper. It warned that ‘stringent methods’ would be needed to counteract them and that the current vaccination programme might not adequately contain them.

The paper produced by the LSHTM group was the most pessimistic of all. It warned that a ‘third wave’ and new variants would bring a high death toll. It also stressed the need for Test and Trace which, together with that other Sage recommendation, vaccine passports, is the new formula for digital slavery and a surveillance state. 

How Ferguson, whose modelling methodologies and predictions had been so comprehensively discredited, was getting away with this repeat performance seemed baffling,  but for the fact that as a key member of the SPI-M-O subgroup he had been able to commission the new modelling research as well as that of supportive colleagues at Warwick University and the LSHTM.

Curiously, several SPI-M-O members turn out to be affiliated to one or another of these three universities too and are the very same academics who wrote these modelling papers. Given that they have commissioned themselves and sit on the subgroup, no independent assessment or scrutiny of their work has taken place. This is the epitome of jobs for the boys and girls.

Here are the SPI-M-O members connected to ICL:

Professors Neil Ferguson (Sage), Stephen Brett, Nicholas Grassly, Steven Riley, Wendy Barclay (Sage) and Drs Marc Baguelin, Samir Bhatt and Tim Lucas. Ferguson and Baguelin contributed to the ICL paper. 

Here are the SPI-M-O members who work at Warwick University:

Professor Matt Keeling and Drs Louise Dyson, Edward Hill, Michael Tildesley and Joe Hilton. Keeling, Dyson, Tildesley and Hill are four out of five authors of the Warwick paper. 

The following SPI-M-O members are connected to the LSHTM:

Professors John Edmunds (Sage), Mark Jit, Graham Medley (Sage), Drs Nick Davies, Rosalind Eggo, Sebastian Funk, Thibaut Jombart, Petra Klepac, Adam Kurcharski, Rohini Mathur, Sam Clifford, Elizabeth Fearon, Gwen Knight and Bill Quilty. Edmunds, Jit and Davies are three out of four of the authors of the LSHTM paper.

The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, is a member of both Sage and SPI-M-O.

It will surprise few readers to learn that ICL, Warwick University and the LSHTM, are historically heavily funded by the GF.

The GF made its first grant to ICL of $31.9million in 2000. ICL received a further $46.7million from the GF in 2006 to research tropical diseases. The GF granted ICL a total of $446,205 in 2019 for research into enteric and diarrhoeal diseases, technology solutions, malaria, and ‘Discovery and Translational Sciences’. In 2020 it gave ICL a total of $91.5million for studies into polio, tuberculosis, global health, technology solutions, malaria, HIV, Discovery and Translational Sciences and family planning.

Last January, Sage member Professor Sir Mark Walport was appointed chair of the Imperial College Academic Health Science Centre (AHSC) Strategic Partnership. His ICL colleagues Professor Robin Grimes and Dr David Halpern sit on Sage too. Professor Ferguson and two ICL colleagues, Professors Wendy Barclay and Peter Openshaw, are members of Nervtag as well.

Warwick University’s GF funding goes back to 2015. An initial grant of $20,000 from the GF rapidly increased to a current total of $8.3million. In 2017, the GF awarded Warwick University $3million to research disease modelling, and in 2020 $2.2million to study neglected tropical diseases.

The LSHTM received a $40million GF grant for malaria research in 2000, with other grants in 2008 totalling $60million. More recently, in 2019, it was awarded a total of $15million, including £1million for Aids research, and in 2020 a further $1.5million for vaccine development.

Sage member Professor Yvonne Doyle works at the LSHTM as does Nervtag member Professor John Edmunds and Independent Sage member Professor Martin McKee. Professor Edmunds was recently a recipient of a grant worth £5million from UKRI, which collaborates with the GF, to study disease modelling in Africa.

The late Professor Val Curtis, a member of Independent Sage, also worked at the LSHTM. 

Predictably, none of the recent modelling by this closed shop takes into account the economic damage, social disintegration or consequences of lockdown, or the neglect of non-Covid-19 diseases as a result of lockdown and social distancing policies. Yet all this is now extensively catalogued. The conflicts of interest and cross over with these government advisers and highly directed research in universities heavily funded by GF, which has one narrow vision global vaccination agenda, is alarming.

Even more alarming is that it is on this basis that an unaccountable and unelected body has effectively dictated Government policy and our lives this past year. Its controversially modelled predictions of worst-case scenarios, none of which to date have been borne out, have been useful for two things: terrifying the populace into submission and priming the government, and us, into further lockdowns next autumn and winter – and establish them as the ‘new normal’.

Whether the men and women named here are useful idiots for Gates, or self-servers without moral compass, such scientific narrow vision reflects very poorly on them and their institutions.

The tentacles of the GF are everywhere. In the final part of this series I will be looking at its funding of the Oxford Recovery trials, Cambridge Science Park, its interconnections with the AstraZeneca project, its funding of several other universities, and finally at its investment in Serco, one of the outsourcing companies behind the Test and Trace programme.

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »