Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Bill Gates Turns Mosquitoes Into ‘Flying Syringes’, But Who Controls What They Inject?

Sputnik – 02.01.2025

A Bill Gates-funded center has bred mosquitoes capable of injecting parasites into unsuspecting humans under the pretext of vaccinating against malaria. But are they truly harmless?

The Gates Foundation-backed Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands has developed a method of malaria vaccination using mosquitoes to deliver live-attenuated Plasmodium falciparum parasites.

The mosquitoes act as ‘flying syringes’ to deliver malaria vaccines – or potentially other substances. But concerns have been raised that recipients could be unaware of the process and be vaccinated without their consent.

How It All Began

  • In 2008, Gates pledged $168 million to develop a next-gen malaria vaccine. Jichi Medical University in Japan received funding to genetically modify mosquitoes that can pass a malaria vaccine protein into a host.
  • In 2016, Gates announced a joint $3.7-billion initiative with the British government to combat malaria.
  • By 2018, Gates-funded Oxitec was developing genetically-modified male mosquitoes whose offspring with wild females would die before adulthood.
  • In both cases, scientists raised concerns over the lack of comprehensive studies of environmental, health and ethical risks.

Once Pandora’s Box is Open, It Cannot be Closed

  • If issues of human consent and ethics are overlooked, insects could be used as ‘vectors’ for other biological agents.
  • But who guarantees they carry life-saving vaccines and not harmful pathogens? It would be impossible to verify the exact contents of the ‘flying syringes’.

Mosquitoes as Deadly Weapons

  • Insects have previously been studied as potential carriers of viruses and bacteria.
  • Nazi Germany reportedly developed malaria-carrying mosquitoes as bio-weapons at Dachau.
  • The Pentagon is said to have conducted similar studies in overseas bio-labs, including in Ukraine, according to assassinated Russian Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov.
  • Kirillov revealed that US biolabs in Ukraine studied viruses transmitted by mosquitoes, including dengue fever. That was also referenced in a lawsuit filed by Cubans following the 1981 dengue epidemic in the country, where the only area unaffected was around the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay.

January 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Fact-checking Fortune: Has Polio Vaccine Saved 20 Million Children From Paralysis?

The Defender | December 23, 2024

A Dec. 13 article in Fortune called the polio vaccine used in the U.S. today “not only safe but also effective.”

The article also claimed that because 3 billion children have been vaccinated against polio since 1988, according to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, that means “20 million people who would’ve otherwise been paralyzed by polio are walking today.”

How accurate is the 20 million figure?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) website, in 1988, there were 350,000 reported polio cases worldwide in a global population of 5.1 billion people. If, as the WHO website states, “One in 200 infections leads to irreversible paralysis,” that would amount to 1,750 cases of irreversible paralysis linked to polio in 1988.

Using that figure — 1,750 cases in 1988 — and factoring in 1.2% annual population growth, the estimated number of cases of irreversible paralysis between 1988 and 2024 would total approximately 80,910 — not 20 million, as Fortune reported.

Here are four other facts about polio vaccines the Fortune article doesn’t address.

1. Polio vaccines used in U.S. don’t prevent infection or transmission.

According to Fortune, the polio vaccine is “safe and effective.” Here’s why that statement oversimplifies the issue of polio vaccines and leads to misleading conclusions.

There are two kinds of polio vaccines used in the world today, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They are the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and the oral polio vaccine (OPV).

The OPV is used for mass vaccination campaigns of children outside the U.S., as was recently done in Gaza. However, the U.S. exclusively uses IPV polio vaccines, according to the CDC.

The IPV products, which are injected, contain an inactivated — or dead — poliovirus. According to the CDC, the IPV protects against “severe disease caused by poliovirus” but “does not stop transmission.”

According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative, the IPV also doesn’t prevent infection.

Two stand-alone IPV products are licensed in the U.S. by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both are manufactured by Sanofi. The other five are combination vaccines that target polio plus other illnesses, including diptheria, pertussis and tetanus.

One of the two stand-alone IPV products, Poliovax, was discontinued. The FDA page on licensed polio vaccines doesn’t explain why.

That leaves IPOL as the sole stand-alone polio vaccine licensed in the U.S.

2. Global polio vaccine campaigns can lead to ‘vaccine-derived’ polio outbreaks. 

As its name suggests, the “oral polio” vaccine, or OPV — used only outside the U.S. — is delivered orally. The OPV contains a weakened vaccine-virus that activates an immune response in the body, according to the WHO.

Unlike the IPV products used in the U.S., the OPV prevents transmission, according to the CDC and the WHO. However, the weakened vaccine-virus used in the OPV can cause polio variant outbreaks.

The CDC states that the U.S. stopped using OPV “to eliminate the risk of polio variants that can occur with OPV.”

According to the WHO, the continued use of the OPV “poses a risk to wiping out the disease” because the weakened vaccine-virus originally contained in the OPV can begin to circulate among people who didn’t get the vaccine.

“When this happens,” the WHO said, “if it is allowed to circulate for sufficiently long enough time, it may genetically revert to a ‘strong’ virus, able to cause paralysis, resulting in what is known as circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses.”

Vaccine-derived polioviruses were responsible for the recently reported cases of polio in Gaza and the 2022 case reported in New York.

In March 2023, seven children were paralyzed by vaccine-derived polio linked to the novel oral polio vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) developed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, according to health officials in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.

In other words, the viral infections in these cases resulted from exposure to the vaccine-virus used in the OPV — not from exposure to a naturally occurring, or “wild,” strain of the poliovirus.

The last wild poliovirus case reported in the U.S. was in 1979, according to the CDC.

3. Risk of paralysis from poliovirus infection is roughly 0.001%.

Approximately 90-95% of poliovirus infections are asymptomatic, according to the FDA package insert for IPOL, the only stand-alone IPV product used in the U.S. The package insert also provides general information on polio, including this:

“Nonspecific illness with low-grade fever and sore throat (minor illness) occurs in 4% to 8% of infections. Aseptic meningitis occurs in 1% to 5% of patients a few days after the minor illness has resolved.

“Rapid onset of asymmetric acute flaccid paralysis occurs in 0.1% to 2% of infections, and residual paralytic disease involving motor neurons (paralytic poliomyelitis) occurs in approximately 1 per 1,000 infections.”

In other words, according to the FDA, the risk of becoming paralyzed as a result of a poliovirus infection is roughly 0.001%.

4. All polio vaccines used today are genetically modified.

Unlike the original polio vaccines developed in the early 1950s by Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin, the IPV and OPV being administered today are genetically modified.

In 2020, the WHO authorized a new genetically modified OPV for emergency use in polio outbreaks. According to a 2023 article in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, nOPV2 was developed through a global partnership between public health, governmental, philanthropic and nonprofit organizations, including the Gates Foundation.

IPOL, the only stand-alone polio vaccine used in the U.S., uses technology that involves growing the poliovirus on monkey kidney cells whose chromones were modified to cause them to multiply forever.

In 2022, attorney Aaron Siri, on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network, petitioned the FDA to “withdraw or suspend the approval for IPOL for infants, toddlers, and children until a properly controlled and properly powered double-blind trial of sufficient duration is conducted to assess the safety of this product.”

The petition stated that modified monkey kidney cells “are susceptible to infection by dozens of viruses, including HPV, measles, rubella, reovirus, SV40 virus, and SV-5.”

According to the petition, Sanofi’s IPOL vaccine hasn’t been adequately proven safe because the clinical trials relied on for licensing the product did not include a control group and declared the vaccine safe after following the trial participants for up to only  three days after injection.

The FDA has not withdrawn or suspended its approval of IPOL as requested by Siri, and the agency continues to rely on the existing clinical trials and the agency’s own safety assessment lasting only up to three days.

The CDC recommends children receive four doses of IPOL, starting at age 2 months. The second dose is given at 4 months. The third is given at 6-18 months, and the fourth is given anytime between 4 and 6 years.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

This article is part of a series of articles by The Defender responding to the latest media coverage of vaccines, triggered by the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

December 23, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 1 Comment

Kenya Temporarily Suspends Diplomatic Immunity for Gates Foundation

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 2, 2024

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation no longer has diplomatic immunity and privileges in Kenya, at least for now. Kenya’s High Court suspended the immunity after the Law Society of Kenya filed a legal challenge against the government.

The Kenyan government in October recognized the Gates Foundation and its employees as a charitable trust with special rights in Kenya, under the Privileges and Immunities Act. The new status exempted the foundation and its employees in Kenya from legal action for acts performed in Kenya as part of official duties.

However, the Nov. 25 ruling by Justice Bahati Mwamuye suspends the immunity until at least Feb. 5, 2025, when a court will “review progress and set a hearing date for oral submissions on the petition.”

The ruling also requires all defendants, including Kenya’s minister of foreign affairs and the State Law Office, “to collect, preserve, and compile all documentation regarding the privileges granted to the Gates Foundation, including details of the cooperation agreement,” under threat of legal consequences for non-compliance.

The Gates Foundation and the Kenyan government have until Dec. 10 to respond, Eastleigh Voice reported.

The diplomatic privileges allowed the Gates Foundation “to engage in contracts, legal actions, and property transactions within the country” and granted the foundation “tax exemptions and immunity from legal actions related to their official duties,” leaving many Kenyans “with raised eyebrows,” Kenyans.co.ke reported.

In its legal challenge, the Law Society of Kenya said the immunity “undermines public interest and constitutional principles” and argued that the government’s decision should be declared null and void.

Gates ‘holds governments ransom’

Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, said the High Court’s suspension “shows the Kenyan system is functioning as it should.”

“From the point of view of the average Kenyan citizen, granting immunity to a large collection of foreigners working for a private foundation … with financial interests in the drugs they are being told to take should be really alarming,” Bell said.

Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, executive director of Children’s Health Defense Africa and founder of the health advocacy organization Transformative Health Justice, said Gates “operates from a position of immense financial wealth and thus political clout. Through using mechanisms of the carrot (funding) and the stick (withdrawal of funding), he holds governments ransom.”

Mohamed called the Kenyan government’s decision to offer the Gates Foundation immunity “horrifying” and said it shows “our governments are captured.”

She added:

“The negative consequences of this shocking decision are far-reaching. They include the erosion of accountability, unequal treatment in the law, damage to national sovereignty, the mockery of public transparency and participation.”

Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said he believes Gates’ efforts to attain diplomatic immunity in countries like Kenya are connected to a profit motive.

“Wherever Gates goes, he stuffs his pockets under the guise of philanthropy while he sits back and collects his returns on investment, no matter the outcome,” Hinchliffe said.

“When you have that much wealth and power — when you have an organization that contributes more to the annual WHO [World Health Organization] budget than most nation-states — then you can buy your way into anything you want, including diplomatic immunity,” Hinchliffe said. “But, that immunity can only last so long.”

For other experts, Gates’ drive to attain diplomatic immunity is an effort to shield himself from legal consequences for his actions and those of the Gates Foundation.

Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender, “It should be assumed that no one entity would seek such immunity unless they thought they might be at risk of legal penalties.”

Nass added:

“Gates has been charged with many crimes, including for monopolistic business practices, for conducting a clinical trial involving girls in India that was associated with child deaths and lack of informed consent. He has certainly been accused of false advertising of agricultural products in India and Africa.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, said, “It is pretty bizarre that they gave Gates privileges and immunities under their domestic legislation in the first place. Obviously, this was an attempt by Gates to shield himself and his accomplices from criminal prosecution and civil liability in Kenya.”

Gates is currently facing a lawsuit in The Netherlands filed by seven COVID-19 vaccine injury victims, and faces legal challenges in at least one other country, India, for damages connected to the vaccines.

Gates immunity in Kenya sets ‘a dangerous precedent’

The Gates Foundation previously defended the Kenyan government’s decision to grant it diplomatic immunity, stating that the foundation operates “according to the typical agreements Kenya makes with other foundations and nonprofits.”

Kenya’s Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi also defended the decision, describing it as a routine diplomatic practice and noting the foundation’s growing presence in Kenya — including the establishment earlier this month of a sub-regional office in Nairobi, Kenya’s capital.

“The office will expand and enhance the Foundation’s work in healthcare, agriculture and ICT [information and communication technology] in Kenya,” Tuko reported.

However, according to Capital FM, “The decision to extend diplomatic immunity has sparked widespread debate over accountability. Critics argue that the privileges shield the Foundation from legal scrutiny, setting a dangerous precedent.”

Mohamed told The Defender that granting immunity to Gates in Kenya creates diplomatic and economic pressures on other African countries to offer similar legal exemptions. She said:

“Given Gates’ influence and the reach of his philanthropic initiatives across the continent, neighboring countries might feel compelled to follow Kenya’s lead to attract or retain Gates’ investments and programs, particularly in health, education, and agriculture. This could lead to a domino effect, where more African nations feel obligated to grant immunity.

“This will undermine the autonomy of African countries over their legal systems and create a tier of foreign actors operating outside the jurisdiction of local laws, weakening governance and setting a precedent where exemptions are granted based on wealth or influence, rather than merit or need, posing risks to legal sovereignty and equitable governance across the continent.”

Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said the immunity granted to the Gates Foundation is part of an ongoing trend in which major international organizations are granted such privileges.

“Ever since we created a central bank with sovereign immunity in 1930 — the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) — we have seen the steady creation of international organizations that enjoy sovereign immunity, as well as international treaties that subvert national and local law,” Fitts said. “Not surprisingly this has been followed by the steady erosion of the rule of law and centralization of ownership and wealth … allowing a handful of elites to make war on the population and take assets.”

In the case of the Gates Foundation, Fitts said she believes “granting diplomatic immunity to the Gates Foundation lowers the cost of the foundation prototyping complete control with digital ID while reducing their population with vaccines.”

According to a 2022 investigation by Corey Lynn, “The U.S. has given 76 public international organizations immunities, privileges, and tax exemptions dating back to 1946, just 10 years after BIS expanded its immunities with the Hague Convention of 1936.”

An organization that enjoys such immunity is Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance — an international public-private partnership promoting vaccination, established in 1999 by the Gates Foundation. The foundation holds one of the four permanent seats on Gavi’s board and heavily funds the organization to this day.

According to Lynn, “Almost immediately after World War II, Congress passed the International Organizations Immunities Act, which was signed into law on December 29, 1945. This established immunities, privileges, and tax exemptions for international organizations that might not be considered international organizations under the rules of international laws.”

Gates’ involvement in Africa involves vaccines, agriculture, digital ID

Gates’ massive investment in Africa includes involvement in sectors such as agriculture, public health and more recently, digital IDs in Kenya.

In October, Business Daily Africa reported that the Gates Foundation will advise Kenya on the rollout of Maisha Namba, a new digital ID system. According to Reclaim the Net, “The plan envisages every newborn being assigned a Maisha Namba, which stays with them throughout their life.”

Many of the Gates Foundation’s investments in African agriculture are funded through the Nairobi-based AGRA, previously known as the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. The foundation is AGRA’s co-founder and biggest donor.

Gates/AGRA’s practices have been criticized by human rights and environmental groups — and by some African farmers, who accused the Gates Foundation of “playing God” and using “its enormous political and monetary influence to crowd out alternative ideas.” Research has shown that AGRA-supported initiatives have failed, sometimes leading to increased hunger.

The Gates Foundation’s activities in Africa also include the development and distribution of vaccines, a program to implement mass circumcision in Swaziland and Zambia to curb the transmission of HIV and the “Target Malaria” project, which has proposed ending malaria by introducing genetically modified, or GMO mosquitoes.

According to Mohamed, “The Gates Foundation funds university programs and, in doing so, influences the policies and the programs’ direction.” The Gates Foundation and the European Union have invested over $100 million to establish an African drugs regulator.

Addressing opposition to Gates’ plans in Kenya, Hinchliffe said, “As we have seen time and again, when the people begin to wake up and rise up against injustice, that type of diplomatic immunity begins to disappear rather quickly.”

“If the Gates Foundation is granted immunity again, to me, that would be a red flag of massive corruption.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

December 4, 2024 Posted by | Corruption | , | 1 Comment

‘Disaster Waiting to Happen’: FDA Approves Phase 1 Trial of Gates-funded Self-amplifying Bird Flu Vaccine

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 14, 2024

Clinical trials — funded by the U.S. government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — are set to begin for a self-amplifying mRNA vaccine targeting the H5N1 bird flu virus.

Arcturus Therapeutics announced earlier this week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a “Study Can Proceed” notification for its investigational ARCT-2304 vaccine candidate.

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher told The Defender the FDA’s notification “means Arcturus Therapeutics can begin its “experiment of injecting humans with H5N1 bird flu replicon mRNA.”

Self-amplifying mRNA injections contain an enzyme that instructs the body on how to make more mRNA. Arcturus says the vaccine is “formulated within a lipid nanoparticle” and “is designed to make many copies of mRNA within the host cell.” This enables “lower doses than conventional mRNA vaccines.”

Hulscher said the replication machinery of self-amplifying vaccines behaves “like a synthetic virus” and “allows for an unknown period of toxic antigen production.”

Writing on Substack, immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D., said the new vaccine has “major red flags.” She told The Defender, “Self-amplifying mRNA products should not be used. This is an absolute disaster waiting to happen.”

According to Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, “Arcturus’ self-replication platform has all the hazards of the other synthetic modified mRNA wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle, just much worse. With self-replication it can become immortal, forever antagonizing your — or your fetus’ — immune system with antigens.”

Christof Plothe, D.O., a member of the World Council for Health steering committee, questioned the introduction of self-amplifying mRNA vaccines amid ongoing safety concerns about conventional mRNA shots. He told The Defender :

“The self-replicating technology takes the mRNA vaccines to a new level. The vaccine contains the gene for the spike protein and the gene for a protein called replicase, which allows the RNA to replicate.

“After the rollout of the first global genetic experiment with mRNA technology … it seems unbelievable that an even more aggressive attack on our body and genetics should be tried out.”

On Substack, Rose wrote that self-amplifying vaccines are genetically modified, as “the coding template is a modified Alphavirus [a type of RNA virus] genome with the virus sub-genomic bits spiked out and the spike gene ‘spiked in.’”

“Use of GMOs [genetically modified organisms] require specific licensing application and procedures,” Rose wrote, questioning whether this is the case for self-amplifying vaccines.

Small dose of replicon mRNA likely ‘more hazardous’ than larger dose of conventional mRNA shot

Arcturus’ Phase 1 clinical trial will enroll approximately 200 healthy adults in the U.S.

Rose questioned the clinical trial’s enrollment criteria. She said the criteria include a warning to “childbearers” to wear condoms when engaging in intercourse during the trial period. People who experienced “significant adverse reactions” to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are excluded from enrollment.

Despite Japan’s recent inclusion of a self-amplifying COVID-19 vaccine among the routine vaccines it offers to older adults during this year’s cold and flu season, Hulscher said trials for that vaccine revealed significant safety signals.

In clinical trials for the self-amplifying COVID-19 vaccine offered in Japan, “five deaths occurred among the injected in study phase 3b. Injected participants experienced a 90% adverse event rate (74.5% systemic, 15.2% required medical attention) after the first dose in study phases 1, 2, and 3a combined,” Hulscher said.

Hulscher said Arcturus’ claims that vaccines using self-amplifying mRNA technology create the impression that those vaccines will be safer. He argued that this would not be the case.

“Because they self-replicate for an unknown period of time, a small dose of a replicon mRNA is expected to be more hazardous than a larger dose of conventional mRNA,” Hulscher said.

According to Jablonowski:

“The difference between medicine and poison is dose — and you cannot dose the mRNA vaccines. Arcturus promotes ‘smaller doses’ as a feature, but the reality is that we have never been able to measure the antigen exposure from an mRNA vaccine.

“Even if we had a theory of how many protein antigens were produced per mRNA strand, we would never know how many times the mRNA self-replicated.”

Jablonowski said other risks of self-amplifying vaccines include shedding and possible hybridization with other viruses.

“It’s possible for exosomes to escape the human ‘host’ and transmit — or ‘infect’ — other humans or even animals,” Jablonowski said. “A scary scenario involves hybridization where the self-replicating mRNA could be incorporated into an existing infectious virus. … If the self-replicating mRNA teams up with a successful existing virus, it will alter Earth’s virome.”

Hulscher called for the withdrawal of all self-amplifying mRNA shots. He said:

“These experimental injections must not receive further regulatory approval for humans or animals if we are to prevent another public health disaster. All self-amplifying mRNA injections currently available for humans and animals should be immediately withdrawn until comprehensive, long-term safety studies are conducted.”

However, Hulscher said, Big Pharma is pushing for their continued development. “With at least 33 self-amplifying mRNA injection candidates in development, they have invested far too much time and money to back off,” Hulscher said.

Gates, Biden administration funding research into self-amplifying vaccines

The FDA’s “Study Can Proceed” notification comes amid recent warnings that bird flu might cause the next pandemic.

Arcturus noted that the clinical study is funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) — a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for developing medical countermeasures.

“Arcturus is actively engaged with the U.S. government to prepare for the next pandemic,” Joseph Payne, president and CEO of Arcturus Therapeutics, said in the company’s statement. “Self-amplifying mRNA technology is a key step in this important process.”

Not mentioned in Arcturus’ press release is a 13-month, $928,563 grant the company received last month from the Gates Foundation for “vaccine development.”

The Gates Foundation has supported mRNA bird flu vaccine research, including funding several studies and journal papers in the field in recent years.

In May, the foundation granted Imperial College London $227,360 “to investigate the translational relevance of self-amplifying RNA platform for rotavirus vaccine candidates.”

The Biden administration has funded several initiatives to develop mRNA bird flu vaccines, including self-amplifying vaccines.

In July, BARDA awarded Moderna $176 million for late-stage development and testing of an mRNA bird flu vaccine. Last year, three companies received funding under Project NextGen, an HHS initiative, for the “rapid development of the next generation of vaccines and treatments.”

One of these companies, Gritstone Bio, received $433 million “to conduct a mid-stage study of its self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate.”

Experts who spoke with The Defender expressed concern about the involvement of government agencies like BARDA and private organizations like the Gates Foundation in developing these vaccines.

“Are we seeing the next lab creation to create global fear and suppression?” asked Plothe.

Rose addressed Arcturus’ statement that it is developing “a mRNA-based platform for pandemic influenza vaccine development” — that “may make vaccines available much sooner than egg- and cell-based technologies.”

“Why is the word ‘Pandemic’ in the title?” Rose asked on Substack. “It is more likely than not that this is the priming of/grooming of the public for the next ‘planned pandemic.’”

In 2022, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations — funded by the Gates Foundation — launched its “100 Day Mission,” to build the infrastructure for the development of a new vaccine within 100 days of the onset of a future pandemic.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

November 17, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 3 Comments

Dark Money, Darker Motives: Why is Bill Gates Backing Kamala Harris Using Shady Super PAC?

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 23.10.2024

Tech billionaire, philanthropist and WEF cheerleader Bill Gates has given Kamala Harris’s campaign a $50 mln boost using dark money super PAC Future Forward. The donation was intended to remain secret, but was uncovered by NYT this week.

What’s Future Forward?

Set up in 2018 by former Obama campaign staffers and coming out of left field in the final weeks of the 2020 race to fund a massive pro-Biden media blitz, Future Forward is a super political action committee funded mostly by Big Tech and venture capital firms, including Meta, Google, disgraced crypto financier Sam Bankman-Fried, Bain Capital and Bridgewater Associates.

The super PAC has raised a whopping $700 mln for the 2024 election cycle, rolling out $75 mln in pro-Harris ads last week.

What’s Behind Gates’ Electoral ‘Generosity’?

2024 is at least the second election cycle where Gates has used a dark money vehicle to support the Democratic Party’s candidate. In 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed nearly $70 mln to the New Venture Fund, a nonprofit belonging to DC consultancy Arabella Advisors, which bankrolls the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a goliath of undisclosed donations for Democratic politicians and liberal causes which raised nearly $390 mln four years ago. Publicly, Gates and his now former wife also gave $500,000 to Biden’s inaugural committee.

Mr. Gates has been an active supporter of Democratic candidates since at least 2008, contributing financially to and praising the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Gates’ ties to the Clintons are deeply rooted, with the billionaire becoming a top donor to the Clinton Foundation, and forging partnerships with the organization for global projects since at least 2013.

In a telling interview in 2016 in which he explained his preference for Clinton, Gates said “there have been questions about vaccines in general where some of the candidates have shown that they’re not as up to date about vaccines in general, and that’s got to be a concern.”

“Science in general, whether it’s GMOs or vaccines, there’s a lot of people out there who don’t give science the benefit of the doubt. In terms of experience, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have more experience in global health,” Gates said at the time.

How has Gates profited off the Dems’ agenda?

With Harris’ presidential bid expected to broadly continue the Biden/Clinton line on foreign and domestic policy, it makes sense for Gates to throw his influence behind the VP, given the perceived threat of the Trump brand of red-pill MAGA Republicans and their anti-vax, anti-tech, and anti-interventionist leanings.

“This election is different, with unprecedented significance for Americans and the most vulnerable people around the world,” Gates said this week after info about his $50 mln donation leaked out.

“I think it’s great to have somebody who’s younger, who can think about things like AI and how we shape that in the right way, and I certainly offer up my opinions to the politicians who are interested,” Gates said this summer after Biden dropped out and named Harris his successor.

The Gates Foundation’s fortunes got a big boost under Biden, with its endowment growing from $69 bln in 2020 to $75.2 bln in 2023.

Gates enjoyed a profits bonanza off mRNA coronavirus vaccines mandated by the Biden administration. In 2022, he sold off shares of BioNTech stocks he bought in 2019 as sales slowed. His foundation has also owned shares in Pfizer, CureVac and Vir Biotech going back to well before the pandemic.

The billionaire’s foundation supports the Global Virome Project – an ambitious initiative created in 2018 to predict pathogens that could trigger lethal pandemics, but accused of weaponizing viruses from a network of 150 biolabs worldwide.

Gates has also backed a broad array of World Economic Forum-affiliated initiatives, including projects to reduce emissions and create synthetic meat and dairy. In 2022, The Seattle Times revealed Gates’ secret lobbying to save Biden’s signature $2+ trln Build Back Better social and climate spending package.

Gates has also been a top backer of the Biden administration’s battle against media and online ‘misinformation’, with an explosive MintPress investigation from 2021 revealing that his foundation had bankrolled some $319 mln in media, including CNN, the BBC, Le Monde, the Financial Times, Der Spiegel and others to ensure favorable coverage of his agenda and that of his allies.

October 24, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

New Report: State Department Funded Fact-checkers to Censor ‘Lawful Speech’

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 18, 2024

The U.S. Department of State-funded domestic and international fact-checking entities that censored American independent media outlets and social media users who questioned the Biden administration’s COVID-19 and other policies, according to a congressional report.

The report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business stated:

“The Federal government has funded, developed, and promoted entities that aim to demonetize news and information outlets because of their lawful speech.”

The government’s actions fueled “a censorship ecosystem” that suppressed “individuals’ First Amendment rights” and “the ability of certain small businesses to compete online.”

The report focused on the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), which promoted and funded “tech start-ups and other small businesses in the disinformation detection space … with domestic censorship capabilities.”

The “fact-checking” firms named in the report include the International Fact-Checking Network — owned by the Poynter Institute — and NewsGuard.

The International Fact-Checking Network, established in 2015, has received funding from another State Department-affiliated group, the National Endowment for Democracy — and from Google, the Open Society Foundations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

According to the House report, the federal government “assisted the private sector in detecting alleged MDM [misinformation-disinformation-malinformation] for moderation” and “worked with foreign governments with strict internet speech laws,” including European Union member states and the United Kingdom, to censor speech.

The report determined that the GEC and the National Endowment for Democracy violated international restrictions by “collaborating with fact-checking entities” to assess the content of domestic media outlets.

The “fact-checking” operations targeted independent media outlets, and as a result, “the scales are tipped in favor of outlets which express certain partisan narratives rather than holding the government accountable.”

Whether the State Department’s actions rise to “unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment is currently before the courts,” the report stated.

The State Department and several GEC officials are defendants in Murthy v. Missouri, a lawsuit alleging the Biden administration colluded with social media to censor free speech.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and its chairman on leave, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden, a similar lawsuit that last year was consolidated with Murthy v. Missouri.

The Poynter Institute is a defendant in another censorship lawsuit, CHD v. Meta, that CHD filed against Facebook’s parent company.

NewsGuard partnered with CDC, WHO to censor online content

According to the report, NewsGuard used money it received from the GEC and the U.S. Department of Defense to fund efforts to lower the advertising revenue “of businesses purported to spread MDM.”

“A system that rates the credibility of press is fatally flawed as it is subject to the partisan lens of the assessor, making the ratings unreliable,” the report states.

NewsGuard leveraged taxpayer dollars to develop Misinformation Fingerprints, a product that “catalogues what it determines to be the most prominent falsehoods and ‘misinformation narratives’” circulating online, “essentially outsourcing the U.S. government’s perception of fact to NewsGuard,” the report states.

NewsGuard later partnered with dozens of companies, organizations, universities and media outlets, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of the Surgeon General and the World Health Organization (WHO).

“During the pandemic, the WHO enlisted NewsGuard for its input, including regular reports, on which COVID-19 narratives it determined to be misinformation were prevalent online,” the report states. “The WHO then contacted social media companies and search engines asking them to remove this content.”

‘Nobody wanted’ fact-checkers until ‘actual truths started getting out’

Tim Hinchliffe, publisher of The Sociable, told The Defender, “These so-called ‘fact-checkers’ are not in the business of actually checking facts. They are in the business of controlling narratives … Nobody wanted or needed these organizations until actual truths started getting out.”

Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told The Defender the government increasingly relies on censorship to promote its favored narratives.

“They need to institute more and more censorship,” Fitts said. “It’s hard to refute the gaslighting that flows from this imagination factory.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender he wasn’t surprised that the State Department is “working to censor those who disagree with U.S. government policies and their globalist agenda.”

The report recommends that no federal funds “should be used to grow companies whose operations are designed to demonetize and interfere with the domestic press” and that federal agencies “should not be outsourcing their perception of fact to speech-police organizations subject to partisan bias.”

GEC also faces the loss of its government funding. According to the Washington Examiner, “A provision through the annual State Department appropriations bill, which passed the House this summer and will be negotiated in the Senate, aims to ban future checks to the GEC.”

But for Boyle, this is not enough. He said the State Department has, “at a minimum,” committed “the federal crime of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.”

Censorship ‘a pendulum that swings both ways’

The Gateway Pundit last week reported on additional links between the International Fact-Checking Network, other “fact-checking” firms and Big Tech.

In 2015, Poynter partnered with Google News Lab, which earlier that year, helped establish First Draft News. Active until 2022, First Draft was a consortium of social media verification groups that shared methods for combating “fake news.”

Another First Draft founder, fact-checking firm Bellingcat, also received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy.

First Draft was previously led by Claire Wardle, Ph.D., a Brown University professor who, according to “Twitter Files” released last year, advised the Biden administration on COVID-19 “misinformation” — despite having no science or medical credentials.

In 2016, Poynter and the International Fact-Checking Network partnered with First Draft “to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the [news] verification process.” Other partners included Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, NBC News and BBC News.

In 2017, Google News Lab partnered with the International Fact-Checking Network “to dramatically increase the searchable output of fact-checkers worldwide, expand fact-checking to new markets and support fact-checking beyond politics, such as in sports, health and science.” The following year, Poynter acquired PolitiFact.com.

Google was also one of the original funders of The Trust Project, a consortium of news organizations that developed eight “trust indicators” to help the public “easily assess the integrity of news.”

These “trust indicators” later became “one of the sources being used by NewsGuard Technologies for a new product to improve news literacy,” and formed “a foundation for NewsGuard review development.”

Hinchliffe warned that the beneficiaries of censorship based on today’s “fact-checking” may become its targets in the future.

“One of the problems of censorship that operates under the guise of misinformation and disinformation, apart from stifling free speech and suppressing actual truths, is that it’s a pendulum that swings both ways,” he said. “The people calling for censorship now may be in a greater position of power to do so, but it will one day swing back at them.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

September 19, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

G20 Embraces Digital ID Dream While Critics Warn of Surveillance Nightmare

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 19, 2024

The G20 organization, currently chaired by Brazil and recently holding a ministerial meeting there, is wasting no time falling in line with all the key policies advanced by many governments, and globalist elites.

After promising to do its bit in the “war on disinformation” (to the delight of the host, Brazil, whose present government is accused of censorship), G20 member countries “pledged allegiance” to the digital ID and the overall scheme that incorporates it – namely, the digital public infrastructure (DPI).

DPI already counts the UN, the EU, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Gates Foundation as policy backers and vocal promoters. Now G20 ministers with digital economy portfolios have issued a joint declaration to express their “commitment” to both DPI and “combating disinformation”, and there is also inevitably the talk of “AI.”

On the digital ID/DPI front, the ministers speak of “inclusive” DPI, and the same attribute is attached to AI. The declaration “acknowledges” the importance of things like innovation and competition in a digital economy, among other things, at the same time “reaffirming” the importance of digital transformation based on DPI.

Boilerplate remarks are made about transparency and protection of privacy and personal data – but these are the major concerns cited by opponents of this type of scheme, along with the overall fear that they facilitate new, more dangerous forms of mass surveillance through centralization of personal information and tracking of people’s activities.

Referring to digital ID as “a basic DPI,” the declaration further speaks of the Sustainable Development Goals (a UN agenda) and one of its targets to be achieved by 2030 by using digital ID (as a tool of “inclusion”) to provide “legal identity for all.”

Interestingly enough, free speech repression is not the only controversial policy where Brazil seems keen to lead the way; so is DPI, and the digital ID.

During the G20 meeting, Brazil promoted its DPI-related activities, including digital IDs based on biometrics. This policy is explained with buzzwords such as economic growth, sustainable development, and also, “easier access to financial services and government resources, particularly for underbanked populations.”

September 19, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Greed, New Form of Religion, or Compliance Test: Why Are Britons Forced to Eat Bugs?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 13.09.2024

The UK’s National Alternative Protein Innovation Center (NAPIC) has received £15 million ($19.5 million) in British taxpayer money to bolster the alternative proteins sector in the country.

According to the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) website, cultured meat and insect-based proteins could soon be “a sustainable and nutritious part” of Britons’ diets.

Over the past few years, the British press has peddled the idea of embracing edible insects as an alternative to meat. They are rich in protein, healthy fats, vitamins, and minerals, and have a lower environmental footprint, the media asserts to Britons.

“British firms strive to create a buzz around insect farming,” “Edible insects and lab-grown meat are on the menu,” “Would you eat insects if they were tastier?” and “Why it’s time to embrace edible insects?” UK headlines read, stressing that the global insect protein market is projected to reach $8 billion by 2030.

Where Did the Idea of Eating Insects Originate?

Entomophagy, or eating insects, has been actively promoted at the World Economic Forum (WEF), which insists that the consumption of insects “can offset climate change in many ways” and prevent the “impending food crisis,” as the world’s population is set to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, with just 4% of arable land remaining available.

In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) issued a report stating that around two billion people worldwide eat insects as part of their traditional diets.

In 2014, the Belgian food safety agency AFSCA approved 10 worm and cricket species for sale on the Belgian market, exploiting a loose interpretation of a 1997 EU law on “novel food.” The Netherlands, UK, Denmark, and Finland also authorized insects for consumption.

In 2017, the EU and UK permitted seven species of insect to be used as feeds in fish farms.

In January 2018, a European Parliament regulation concerning “novel foods,” including insects, came into force.

In May 2021, the EU officially approved the first insect, the yellow mealworm, as food for humans.

By 2023, four insects had been approved by the EU Commission: the yellow mealworm; the migratory locust); the house cricket; and the lesser mealworm. The EU food safety agency signaled at the time that another eight insects could be authorized soon.

The EC claims that “the environmental benefits of rearing insects for food are founded on the high feed conversion efficiency of insects, less greenhouse gas emissions, less use of water and arable lands, and the use of insect-based bioconversion as a marketable solution for reducing food waste.”

Who’s Driving the Bug Business?

EnviroFlight (US), Innovafeed (France), HEXAFLY (Ireland), Protix (Netherlands), Global Bugs (Thailand), Entomo Farms (Canada), and Ynsect (France) are named as key players in the market.

Europeans are believed to be the first who delved in the insect protein business, with French firm Ynsect, founded in 2011, and the Dutch producer of insect ingredients Protix, established in 2009.

Insect protein firms are attracting hefty investments from global foundations and food giants.

In 2017, Protix raised $50.5 million in equity and debt funding, marking the largest investment in the industry at the time.

The US rushed to catch on, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation granting $100,000 to All Things Bugs in 2012 to explore insect food production.

Two American food corporations, ADM and Cargill, invested a whopping $250 million in the French insect protein firm Innovafeed in September 2022. In 2023, the US food giant Tyson poured around $58 million into Protix.

According to some estimates, the edible insect market reached $3.8 billion in 2024, and is projected to amount to $9.04 billion by 2029.

The European market is seen as the largest, while South Asia is the fastest growing. Still, it pales in comparison with the fresh meat market, which amounted to $1.11 trillion as of 2024 and is set to expand further.

Insects Can Be Toxic, But Entomophagy Proponents Don’t Care

Scientists warn that the consumption of edible insects may result in allergic reactions, particularly in people with asthma, hay fever, or allergic skin rashes. Individuals with shellfish allergies – 2% of the worldwide population – are likely to suffer allergic reactions after consuming insects due to their chitin exoskeleton.

Edible insects, including those approved by the EU, are often infected with pathogens and parasites that pose a threat for humans and livestock, a 2019 study by researchers from the University of Warmia and Mazury, Poland, concluded.

What Does the Western Public Say?

Insects have never been part of Western societies’ diet. A 2023 YouGov survey showed that 18% of Americans would be willing to eat whole bugs, while 25% would agree to eat food made with insects.

High living standards still allow Westerners to consume animal protein. The edible insect protein business doesn’t offer high margins amid low consumer acceptance. Consumption of insects is fraught with risks of allergic reactions and parasitic infections.

Nonetheless, entomophagy is being rammed down their throats by the WEF, media, and Hollywood stars eating bugs on camera.

Then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson in 2023 investigated the environmentalist push to eat “creepy crawlers” and suggested that it’s a “compliance test” similar to excessive COVID restrictions.

“Our politicians know that when they control the food, they control the people,” Dutch political activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek told the journalist, referring to EU environmental regulations which make traditional farming in the bloc unprofitable.

“It’s all a new religion… We have to be fearful and scared for COVID, for nitrogen, for carbon dioxide, for [Vladimir] Putin… and meanwhile these people who are in power, now they do whatever they want,” Dutch politician Wybren van Haga said.

Meanwhile, the research and propaganda relating to insect eating has already become a source of wealth for researchers, media companies, speakers, and international forums.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates Wants AI-Based Real-Time Censorship for Vaccine “Misinformation”

By Didi Rankovic – Reclaim The Net – September 11, 2024

Microsoft founder Bill Gates continues with his crusade, as part of the mission of the Gates Foundation, to not only proliferate the use of vaccines but find new justifications to in effect, force them onto those skeptical or unwilling.

One of the methods Gates has clearly identified as helpful in achieving this goal is hitching his “vaccine wagon” to the massive, ongoing scaremongering campaign and narrative around “misinformation” and “AI.”

Gates spoke for CNBC to reveal he may be a vaccine absolutist – but not a free-speech one. He also didn’t sound convinced that America’s Constitution and its speech protections are the right way to go when he brought up the need for “boundaries” allowing some new “rules.”

Gates’ argument incorporates all the main talking points against free speech: misinformation, incorrect information (aka, fake news), violence, and online harassment. And, he sneaked in vaccines in there, while making a case for “rules” in the US as well.

“We should have free speech, but if you’re inciting violence, if you’re causing people not to take vaccines, where are those boundaries that even the US should have rules? And then if you have rules, what is it?” Gates is quoted as saying.

He was evasive on who the authority to introduce that might be, but he clearly wants censorship and wants it to act swiftly. “Is there some AI that encodes those rules because you have billions of activity and if you catch it a day later, the harm is done,” he said.

In case somebody happens to not like Gates, and his lecturing the entire world what it should and shouldn’t do, they’re out of luck: he appears to be on a press tour to promote a Netflix “docuseries” that will have no less than five parts, and is called, “What’s Next? The Future With Bill Gates.”

But looking back at “the past with Bill Gates”  is never a bad idea. We can see Windows, which he now tells CNBC he was allegedly naive about and thought it would only be used for “productive and responsible purposes” as most people would want to have a computer at home.

What they got with Windows, however, is a virus-laden operating system, “a menace to society” in its own way, going decades without proper innovation, while Microsoft was seen by critics as going after open-source competition like a monopolistic, anti-competitive corporate bully.

But here is Gates now, to tell us what our future should look like.

September 11, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Pharma, WHO Team Up to Create Permanent ‘Pandemic’ Market for Mandated, Experimental Vaccines

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 6, 2024

Big Pharma and its key investors are rolling out a new strategy — “the full takeover of the public sector, specifically the World Health Organization (WHO), and the regulatory system that now holds the entire market hostage” — according to a new investigative report by Unlimited Hangout’s Max Jones.

What’s behind the new strategy? The pharmaceutical industry is facing a “patent cliff” by 2030, as many of its blockbuster drugs are set to lose their patent protection, placing $180 billion in sales at risk and threatening to topple the industry.

According to Jones, for years, when patents expired on profitable drugs, pharmaceutical giants deployed a “mergers and acquisitions” strategy, buying up smaller drug companies to add to their product portfolios.

As a result, the industry is now dominated by a handful of companies, conventional chemical drugs exist for most health issues, and the regulatory process for new ones has become onerous.

Big Pharma has now pivoted to acquiring biotech and biologic companies, whose products are “more complex, unpredictable and difficult and expensive to make,” than chemical-based medicine, Jones wrote.

Conventional drugs are chemically synthesized and have a known structure according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biologics come from living humans, animal or microorganism cells, and are technologically altered to target particular proteins or cells in the immune system. The FDA calls biologics “complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.”

As a drug class, biologics offer an appealing solution to the patent cliff problem, because they can’t be easily replicated like generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, producers make “biosimilars,” which unlike genetics can’t simply be interchanged with the original drug during a course of treatment without serious safety risks, according to Jones. And while generics are cheap, biosimilars are still expensive to produce. There also are regulatory hurdles to getting biosimilars to market.

However, Jones wrote, the serious safety issues associated with biologics — the high risk of serious adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, for example — make it difficult for drugmakers to find commercial success in a conventional regulatory environment.

“Luckily for Big Pharma,” Jones wrote, the WHO and its private backers “are pursuing an unprecedented legal process that would cement loopholes that could solve these significant market challenges of at least some biotechnologies.”

Such loopholes made Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines — the paradigmatic example of this new strategy — Big Pharma’s highest-selling annual market success ever.

Distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines to approximately 70% of people globally was possible only because of the “fast-tracked, deregulated development and mandated consumption of the experimental drugs,” Jones wrote.

The industry hopes to replicate that model with other drugs. And it has already begun — last month the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, gave Moderna $176 million to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine.

Stakeholders behind the WHO have turned it into an arm of Big Pharma

According to Jones, the process of rapidly developed and mandated experimental drugs was first adopted by the U.S. military for bioweapons threats. Now, it is being internationally legitimized by the WHO through the agency’s revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and its continued attempt to push its pandemic treaty.

The amendments were watered down and the treaty was partially thwarted at the last meeting of the World Health Assembly, which ended on June 1. However, the powers added to the amendments and the language in the treaty WHO and its backers are still hoping to advance next year show the type of biotech pandemic market Big Pharma has in the works.

According to Jones, this market:

“Will not be one that depends on the free will of consumers to opt in and out of products — but instead relies on tactics of forced consumption and manipulation of regulatory paradigms.

“At the forefront of this push are the WHO’s public-private-partners/private stakeholders, who directly shape and benefit from this policy. Their influence has, in effect, turned the WHO into an arm of Big Pharma, one so powerful that it already demonstrated its ability to morph the entire international regulatory process for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

These stakeholders can wield this power in part because the WHO receives 80% of its funding from private stakeholders.

Those stakeholders include private-sector giants like Bill Gates, his public-private partnership organizations like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and public-sector bureaucrats, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright, Ph.D., of BARDA and the Rockefeller Foundation, who have been working for years to create a new system that would speed up vaccine production.

During the COVID-19 pandemic period, even states that lacked legal structures to provide emergency authorization for new drugs created them, using the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EUL) as justification, and aided by the WHO’s COVAX vaccine distribution system. COVAX was co-led by the WHO, Gavi, CEPI and Unicef, which are all backed by Gates.

The goal now, Jones wrote, is to institutionalize the procedures that were put in place globally for COVID-19 to pave the way for a new pandemic market.

The One Health agenda, which requires “full-scale surveillance of the human-animal environment,” both before and during pandemics, is central to this plan, he wrote.

The four pillars of the emerging pandemic market

There are four pillars to the plan for securing this market. The pillars are embodied in the WHO’s recently passed IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty.

1. Biosurveillance of “pathogens with pandemic potential”: The WHO is calling on member states to create infrastructure to conduct biosurveillance on entire populations.

WHO private stakeholders, like the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been funding such initiatives for years and continue to be at the forefront of similar initiatives today, Jones wrote.

2. Rapid sharing of data and research: Under the IHR amendments, the WHO’s director-general must provide support for member states’ research and development. In the pending treaty, that would include helping them rapidly share data during a pandemic.

Such sharing should help coordinate global pandemic responses and also “pandemic prevention.” That means building a globally coordinated effort to research and share data on diseases that don’t currently pose a public health threat but are allegedly “likely to cause epidemics in the future.”

The WHO’s announcement last week that it is facilitating data-sharing for a new mRNA bird flu vaccine from Argentina is one example.

Experts have raised concerns that incentivizing such “preventive R&D” could incentivize risky gain-of-function research, Jones wrote.

Jones also noted that it is “highly likely” that the same global organizations that partner with the WHO and are funded by its largest private donors will be the ones doing this research and development on vaccines for “future pathogens with pandemic potential” — and also the ones profiting from it.

3. New regulatory pathways: The WHO is developing new regulatory pathways for unapproved medical products to get to market during pandemic emergencies. The IHR amendments are vague on this, Jones wrote, but the proposed language of the treaty aims to speed up emergency authorizations of WHO-recommended investigational “relevant health products.”

The proposed treaty also seeks to compel member countries to take steps to ensure they have the “legal, administrative and financial frameworks in place to support emergency regulatory authorizations for the effective and timely approval of pandemic-related health products during a pandemic.”

4. Global mandates of unapproved products: The final key element in the Big Pharma-WHO plan to pave the way for a new pandemic market is shoring up the global capacity to mandate unapproved medical products.

According to Jones, in July 2023, the WHO adopted the European Union’s (EU) digital COVID-19 passport system, or the “immunity pass” which recorded people’s vaccination records, negative test results or records of previous infections.

“While a digital vaccine passport does not function as a hard mandate in which every citizen of a given population is forced to take a vaccine, it acts as a conditional mandate — one which offers the illusion of choice, but — in reality — restricts the civil liberties of those who do not comply,” Jones wrote.

The 2005 version of the IHR allowed for travel-based mandates that required proof of vaccination to enter countries when there was a public health risk. The new IHR, Jones wrote, expands on this by detailing the kinds of technology that can be used to check such information during future pandemics.

The WHO also is developing its Global Digital Health Certification Network, which expands the EU digital passport system to a global scale. It will digitize vaccination records and health records and will be “interoperable” with existing networks.

While interoperability makes it possible for decentralized data to be shared globally, Jones wrote, “The UN is seeking to impose digital identification as a ‘human right,’ or rather as a condition for accessing other human rights, for the entire global citizenry by 2030, as established in its Sustainable Development Goal 16.9.”

The initiative seeks to provide people with a “trusted, verifiable way” to prove who they are in the physical world and online.

Jones wrote:

“Verification systems of this size will place the right of citizens to do basic activities — like traveling, eating at a restaurant or working their job — in the hands of governments and potentially employers.

“The rights of civilians will be conditional, dictated by data stored in a massive digital hub that is global in its sharing abilities. Not only will domestic governments have access to the health information of their own citizens under this system, but an entire global bureaucracy will as well.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Bill Gates, U.S. Military Among Investors in GMO Insect Protein for Humans

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 2, 2024

While regulators in non-U.S. countries, including Singapore, have issued approvals for specific insect-based foods, in the U.S., the regulatory landscape is murkier — there is no legal approval process or clear-cut prohibition of insects for human consumption.

As a result, insect-containing foods have reached U.S. consumers, even though one of the few existing U.S. laws that address insects in the food supply refers to them as “filth” and a form of “adulteration.”

Crickets and grasshoppers reach U.S. consumers in a variety of forms, from protein bars to protein shakes. They’re also found on restaurant menus and are promoted as pet food and animal feed ingredients.

With few U.S. regulatory barriers to contend with, investors like Bill Gates and Big Food giants such as Tyson Foods have also begun investing in “alternative protein” startups — despite mainstream media “fact-checks” claiming Gates doesn’t support the consumption of insects.

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender lax U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations — under which many insect-containing foods can be classified as “Generally Regarded as Safe” (GRAS) — “means they don’t require testing” and enable the FDA to “look the other way.”

“How long will it take before we learn whether these foods are safe? It could take generations,” Nass said.

Gates, U.S. military among backers of ‘alternative protein’ startups

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges Explorations program in 2012 funded All Things Bugs, a project to “develop a novel food product made from insects to treat malnutrition in children from famine stricken areas of the world,” according to Eurasia Review.

All Things Bugs has since expanded into the development of genetically modified insects. With funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), “we are using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and other methodologies to develop base technologies for creating insects as a new bioresource,” the company states.

DARPA is a research and development agency that operates under the U.S. Department of Defense.

All Things Bugs said that while insects are “a very sustainable source of protein,” it “is innovating to make them a feasible commodity for the food industry.”

Claire Robinson, managing editor of GMWatch, told The Defender, “With all GMOs [genetically modified organisms], including insects, it’s vital that they are subjected to a pre-marketing risk assessment for health and the environment.”

Robinson said, “This includes testing them for the presence of pathogens, possible allergens and substances that may be toxic to humans. Then they must be clearly labeled for the consumer.”

Gates’ investments in insect-based foods appear to be part of a broader strategy to invest in alternatives to animal-based foods for consumers.

In a February blog post, Gates said he invested in Savor, a startup producing butter made from air (carbon dioxide) and water (hydrogen). And in 2022, the Gates Foundation awarded a $4.76 million grant to Nature’s Fynd, a startup producing foods containing fungi-based protein. In 2020, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, founded by Gates, invested in Nature’s Fynd.

The U.S. government’s National Science Foundation (NSF) also is involved in the insects-as-food space, through its funding of the Center for Environmental Sustainability through Insect Farming (CEIF). Established in 2021, CEIF seeks “to develop novel methods for using insects as feed for livestock, poultry, and aquaculture.”

Institutions participating in CEIF include Texas A&M University, Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis and Mississippi State University — along with Tyson Foods, Protix and Innovafeed, backed by food processing giant ADM, formerly the Archer-Daniels-Midland Company.

Insect protein start-ups raised ‘over $1 billion in venture capital since 2020’

The production of insects for human food is expanding in the U.S. and globally, with support from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a seminal report, “Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security,” which promotes the environmental and nutritional benefits of insect consumption.”

A 2022 WEF paper, “5 reasons why eating insects can reduce climate change,” suggests people are “conditioned to think of animals and plants as our primary sources of proteins … but there’s an unsung category of sustainable and nutritious protein that has yet to widely catch on: insects.”

According to a November 2023 Washington Post report, “Insect start-ups have raised over $1 billion in venture capital since 2020.”

A 2021 report by Netherlands-based Rabobank claimed the demand for insect protein, “mainly as an animal feed and pet food ingredient, could reach half a million metric tons by 2030, up from today’s market of approximately 10,000 metric tons.”

A report by Grand View Research forecasted the global insect protein market will expand by an annual compound growth rate of 16.9% by 2030, while European projections estimate “the number of Europeans consuming insect-based food will [reach] a total of 390 million by 2030,” according to EuroNews.

Ynsect, for instance, has built factories in France and the Netherlands, and is erecting factories in the U.S. and Mexico, according to Feed Navigator. The company claims its insect-producing farms are “climate positive,” “benefit biodiversity” and are aligned with the Paris Agreement and the European Union’s “Fit for 55” goal.

In March 2022, Ynsect acquired Nebraska-based Jord Producers — a mealworm farm. And in December 2022, Ynsect signed an agreement with U.S. flour milling company Ardent Mills to build a factory in the Midwestern U.S. Ardent Mills is a joint venture between ConAgra Foods, Cargill and CHS, a global agribusiness cooperative.

Investors in Ynsect include actor Robert Downey Jr.’s FootPrint Coalition and France’s Crédit Agricole bank — along with support from the FAO and the European Commission. The company has raised over $600 million.

Celebrity chefs also are embracing insect food. In November 2023, the Financial Times featured Joseph Yoon, founder of Brooklyn Bugs, whose “goal is to popularise edible insects and build up this food source to help support global food security.”

Your dog can eat insects, too

In addition to a lack of FDA regulations governing the use of insects in foods for humans, the FDA also does not regulate the use of insects for pet food ingredients.

According to Animal Frontiers, “pet food is under the nongovernment Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)” in the U.S. In January, French firm Ynsect became the first company to receive AAFCO authorization for commercial production of mealworm protein for dog food in the U.S.

In October 2023, Big Food giant Tyson Foods announced the acquisition of an ownership stake in the Dutch insect ingredient producer Protix. Tyson said the new joint venture would construct “the first at-scale facility of its kind to upcycle food manufacturing byproducts into high-quality insect proteins and lipids which will primarily be used in the pet food, aquaculture, and livestock industries.”

Although the announcement did not definitively exclude the production of insect-containing foods for humans, a Reuters “fact check” published in May stated, “Tyson Foods does not put insects into products for human consumption.”

Tyson has invested in Upside Foods, which in June 2023 won approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to produce lab-grown chicken. Upside garnered more than $600 million in research and development investments, including from Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk’s brother Kimbal Musk and Cargill.

Vanguard and BlackRock, the world’s two largest institutional investment firms, are also the two top institutional holders of Tyson Foods shares. BlackRock, and its CEO, Larry Fink, have promoted “sustainable” corporate practices.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccine Advocate Peter Hotez Calls for Use of Police, Military Against ‘Anti-vaccine Aggression’

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 26, 2024

Vaccine advocate and pharmaceutical industry insider Dr. Peter Hotez, long a proponent of the COVID-19 vaccine, said he favors deploying police and military powers against “anti-vaxers,” whom he blamed for causing hundreds of thousands of deaths during the pandemic.

During an interview July 5 at the Simposio Internacional de Actualización en Pediatría (International Symposium of Pediatric Updates) in Cartagena, Colombia, Hotez suggested organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and NATO should target “anti-vaccine aggression.”

Hotez said:

“What I’ve said to the Biden administration is, the health sector can’t solve this on its own. We’re going to have to bring in Homeland Security, the Commerce Department, Justice Department to help us understand how to do this.

I’ve said the same with — I met with Dr. Tedros [director general of the WHO] last month … to say, I don’t know that the World Health Organization can solve this on our own. We need the other United Nations agencies. NATO. This is a security problem because it’s no longer a theoretical construct or some arcane academic exercise. Two hundred thousand Americans died because of anti-vaccine aggression, anti-science aggression.

The full interview was available on YouTube until Wednesday evening, when it was removed. The Defender obtained a video recording of the full interview.

Hotez is dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor University College of Medicine and director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the sponsors of the symposium, which was organized by the Colombian Pediatric Society.

Aside from being a vaccine proponent and developer — he helped develop the Corbevax COVID-19 vaccine which was administered in India and has received at least $30 million in vaccine development grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — Hotez has crusaded against so-called “misinformation” about vaccines.

In March, The Hill reported that Hotez has found a “‘parallel career’ fighting misinformation.”

Hotez “finds his efforts to combat misinformation to be ‘meaningful,’” and says “pushing back on the anti-vaccine movement is just as important as developing vaccines,” The Hill wrote.

Hotez also holds six patents on the hookworm (helminth) vaccine, and has several listed patent applications as well, including those for SARS-CoV2 vaccines.

“Peter has cashed in significantly on the COVID-19 pandemic and gets a lot of money when shots go into arms,” said Brian Hooker, Chief Scientific Officer for Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

In his July 5 interview, Hotez called for more stringent action against “anti-vaxers,” whom he connected to entities such as the Russian government, and called for medical schools to educate new doctors about anti-vaccine sentiment.

“‘Anti-science’ and ‘anti-vaxxer’ are propaganda terms Hotez uses to establish a power dynamic over anyone who disagrees with him,” said cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.

“Now Hotez is calling for a security state to enforce his propaganda instead of engaging in much needed dialogue over vaccine safety with a critical appraisal of short- and long-term side effects from the routine childhood vaccine schedule, including the COVID-19 shots,” McCullough added.

According to Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health:

“Hotez has spent his entire career developing vaccines which have not achieved success in commercial use. His demands to impose public health martial law are reminiscent of the ‘Comité de salut public’ — ‘Committee of Public Safety’ — that Robespierre used to murder his political opponents [during the French Revolution].”

For Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Hotez’s suggestions are a call to violate established international human rights law.

“Coercing vaccines upon human beings without their informed and voluntary consent violates the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation, which is a crime against humanity,” Boyle said. “What we see at work here with Hotez is the Nazi mentality that pervades so many vaccinologists like him. Hotez is revealing his true colors.”

Independent journalist Paul D. Thacker has investigated Hotez for his site, The Disinformation Chronicle. He said, “This crackpot idea that we should deploy military forces to deal with moms worried about vaccine side effects and children … doesn’t that speak for itself?”

Dr. Sukharit Bhakdi, a microbiologist, questioned Hotez’s scientific credentials:

“Simple fact: Hotez is not a real scientist. He has never published any research article based on true scientific research. His publications transmit his personal opinions and beliefs. He has not conducted a single valid vaccine trial and has zero data to back his claims.

“He has been on the globalist team together with [Dr. Anthony] Fauci et al. and is now turning to violence to silence all dissenters. This very fact disqualifies him as a physician.”

“His evolution over the course of the pandemic is curious as he has become more and more shrill as time goes on,” Hooker said. “It seems he is trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame by ‘jumping the shark’ and inciting gestapo-like measures against ‘anti-vaxers’ and ‘science deniers.’ His definition of science is very ‘Fauci-esque’ indeed.”

Claim that unvaccinated caused ‘hundreds of thousands’ of deaths ‘an obvious untruth’

During his July 5 interview, Hotez asserted that the unvaccinated were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. He said:

“There’s anti-vaccine activity in every country, and each has its own unique national flavor. But the part that I’m worried about now is something very dark and accelerating in the United States.

“And the most dramatic evidence for that is what happened during the COVID pandemic … My estimate is 200,000 Americans died needlessly because they refused COVID vaccines in 2021, 2022.”

Hotez did not provide evidence supporting this figure, but it was similar to claims made by Dr. Anthony Fauci during Congressional testimony last month. Without citing evidence, Fauci said the unvaccinated are “probably responsible for an additional 200,000-300,000 deaths” in the U.S.”

Risch called this claim “an obvious untruth.”

“In the face of repeated major empirical CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] evidence and CDC’s public acknowledgement that the mRNA vaccines largely failed to reduce COVID transmission, Hotez absurdly claims that people choosing not to vaccinate themselves have contributed more to deaths from COVID than all of the large-scale breakthrough infections among vaccinated people,” Risch said.

McCullough said, “Hotez presumes COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective as any vaccinologist would dream. Sadly, his fantasy was over before it started. The COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe and failed to reduce hospitalization and death in prospective randomized trials or in valid observational studies. They never stopped transmission.”

“All experts, including Hotez, agreed theoretical protection from COVID-19 vaccines was just a few months, requiring frequent boosters,” McCullough added.

Hotez calls parents who choose not to vaccinate their children ‘victims’

In his interview, Hotez called for action — including more censorship — to counter what he called a “dark and accelerating” and “dangerous” anti-vaccine movement in the U.S. and globally that is “expanding and extending to childhood immunizations in the United States.”

“My worry is that this anti-vaccine movement, and it’s not misinformation or [an] infodemic, as many call it, it’s organized, it’s deliberate, it’s well-financed and it’s politically motivated … I worry that’s now globalizing to other countries on the African continent, in Asia and even Latin America,” he added.

On the topic of childhood vaccinations, Hotez said, “Parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids are victims” of this campaign, and called for medical schools to train doctors on how to respond to parents who oppose vaccinations.

“Pediatricians need to understand what the anti-vaccine ecosystem is, how it’s organized, how it operates, and to get educated about it,” he said. “I think that’s a first step … in our medical schools, in our pediatric residency training, in our conferences like this, being able to describe what this anti-vaccine monster looks like.”

But for journalist Rodney Palmer, formerly of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the increasing reluctance of parents to vaccinate their children is due to mounting concerns about vaccine safety. He said:

“The rising movement questioning the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines appears to be based on mounting evidence from government health data collection agencies and the life insurance industry.

“The fraud and cover-up of ivermectin as an effective prevention and treatment of COVID-19 caused a segment of the population to question the official guidance around vaccines — more so once they were mandated.”

Hotez blamed legacy and traditional media, as well as foreign governments, for fueling anti-vaccine sentiments.

“Fox News is now a source of anti-vaccine disinformation,” Hotez said. “If the parents are watching Fox News every night … They are going to be coming into your practice believing disinformation.”

Turning to social media, Hotez said, “Twitter, since Elon Musk has taken it over, has become an anti-vaccine site dominated by anti-vaccine groups and individuals who are monetizing the internet. They’re selling fake autism cures because they say vaccines cause autism, which they don’t.”

Hotez continues to be active on X.

Adversarial foreign governments are also to blame for propagating anti-vaccine rhetoric, according to Hotez. “For instance, the Russian government, the Putin government, is spreading anti-vaccine propaganda. The goal of this is to destabilize society and to have caused people to question authority,” he said.

Hotez did not provide any information to support this claim. Russia produces the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine, under the auspices of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and The Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology — an arm of the Russian federal government.

Hotez calls ‘anti-vaccine movement’ a tool of the ‘far-right’

Hotez also used the interview as an opportunity to plug his upcoming book, “The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science: A Scientist’s Warning.” He said the book “describes [the anti-vaccine] ecosystem and its political leanings in detail.”

According to the book’s publisher, Johns Hopkins University Press, Hotez “explains how anti-science became a major societal and lethal force” and how “the anti-vaccine movement became a tool of far-right political figures around the world.”

In 2022, Hotez fiercely criticized looming Congressional hearings into a possible lab-leak origin of COVID-19 and whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) prematurely discredited the hypothesis, dismissing this as an “outlandish conspiracy.”

However, Hotez’s own 2012 to 2017 NIH grant — totaling $6.1 million — for the development of a SARS vaccine had the aim of responding to any “accidental release from a laboratory,” in addition to a possible zoonotic (or natural) spillover of the virus.

In a June 2023 interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s chairman on leave, podcaster Joe Rogan offered to donate $100,000 to a charity of Hotez’s choice if he agreed to debate Kennedy.

Hotez — with the support of several legacy news media outlets and the American Medical Association — refused Rogan’s offer. He later claimed on social media that a “couple of anti-vaxers” “stalked” and “taunted” him outside his home after he declined the offer to debate Kennedy.


Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

July 26, 2024 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 2 Comments