Someone I consider a mentor recently said that “90% of science is marketing”. I thought that was well put and I’d like to extend the idea further. Much of science is propaganda and nothing more. That’s the topic we’re exploring today.

Science has an amazing reputation, justifiably so. Comedian and actor Ricky Gervais (amazing Golden Globes bit about Jeffrey Epstein here) speaks eloquently about this philosophy…

…except this is a very naïve understanding of science! While that may be true of science AS AN IDEAL it is far from those things in practice.

Why? Because human beings with all their biases and conflicts are the ones that conduct science. To counter everything Gervais said:

• Scientists discriminate.
• They’re far from all humble.
• They jump to conclusions…or even have them from the outset.
• They cover up evidence.
• They hack statistics to get to where they want to go.
• They get offended by new facts that don’t fit their paradigm.
• They definitely hold onto “sacred” scientific theories.

I’ve been thinking about narrative control and propaganda pretty much non-stop the past few weeks now. HOW is it done?

A big part is by utilizing the ALMIGHTY AUTHORITY of science. This is how science is used for good or ill.

But not all science is true!

In fact, “it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true” as was found by Ioannidas.

Think like the enemy…

If you are a propagandist, then there are few things more worthwhile than shrouding your propaganda in scientific clothing.

Can you get something published even if it is straight up lies, as long as it serves your agenda?

With that seed, then just tap into the media marketing machine. Few people are scientifically literate (especially if you use complex modeling) so you’ll be able to slip it by the vast majority of people.

Even those that are scientifically literate, everyone is busy, so who will have time to dig deep into every study?

Just look at how many layers you need to go through to understand the “truth”. As we move down the list we see less understanding, more propaganda.

1. Do you read and understand the whole paper?
2. Do you look at just the abstract?
3. Do you only read a news article or TV story about the science?
4. Do you only see a headline from such news about the science?
5. Do you only hear second-hand the above as the “science” spreads socially?

This science is then what government policies are based on, which in turn impact the public. (How many government officials fall into the same steps above? How many politicians are scientifically literate?)

So let’s look at a few examples of how this plays out:

• Remdesivir vs. Hydroxychloroquine
• Asymptomatic Transmission
• Face Masks

First up, two issues from my Medical Monopoly series.

Medical Monopoly Musings #44
Remdesivir – Poor Science and Conflicts of Interest

Remdesivir is an intravenous anti-viral drug being used for the novel coronavirus. It is produced by Gilead Sciences.

Pharmaceutical companies tend to have very high profit margins. When more than 10% profit is considered good…Gilead had over 50% profits in 2015 on $32.6 billion dollars!

With the novel coronavirus, the drugs companies have been rushing to cash in (*ahem* save lives).

The NIAID study showed that those patients with COVID19 taking remdesivir improved in recovery time and discharge from the hospital, down from 15 days to 11 days. However, the survival difference between remdesivir patients and placebo control was not statistically significant (8% vs. 11.6%).

(Meanwhile, a Chinese study published earlier at the end of April did not find any statistically significant clinical improvement. Here 14% of remdesivir patients died while 13% on placebo did, though again, not statistically significant.)

Christopher Roland of the Washington Post wrote, “Fauci said the results were modest. But, lacking any other treatments, he proclaimed the drug the “standard of care” for hospitalized coronavirus patients. Full results of the trial have not been released, and many questions about the drug’s effectiveness remain unanswered.”

The standard of care based on a press release and an interview. On May 1^st the FDA issued emergency use authorization for remdesivir for treating COVID-19.

Over three weeks later, on May 22^nd, the full study and data was finally released. Turns out the results for faster recovery time were only for a sub-group, those also receiving supplementary oxygen.  Furthermore, they also changed the primary outcome during the trial from number of deaths to recovery time while the trials were ongoing (though those who changed it said they didn’t have access to the data).

The study concludes, “These preliminary findings support the use of remdesivir for patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19 and require supplemental oxygen therapy. However, given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient.”

At the time of writing there are numerous other clinical trials with remdesivir in progress.

Early on, Gilead pledged to donate 1.5 million doses of the drug. Beyond that, an independent organization estimated that Gilead could be charging up $4500 per patient for the drug…on something that is estimated to cost $1 per dose. What is $4500 more when that average coronavirus hospital bill is $30,000, especially since few patients are paying out of pocket?

So at best the drug has a modest effect. At worst, it has some negative side effects that was dropping people out of the trials. But wait, there’s more…

As I’ve established over the course of this series is that conflicts of interest are often at the root of controversies of the medical monopoly. Here is no different.

Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson said, “When it comes to money, we checked financial ties among experts on the government panel devising coronavirus treatment guidelines— which had the effect of dialing back hydroxychloroquine use and giving an edge to remdesivir. We found that of 11 members reporting links to a drug company, nine of them named relationships to remdesivir’s maker Gilead. Seven more, including two of the committee’s leaders, have ties to Gilead beyond the 11 months they had to disclose. Two were on Gilead’s advisory board. Others were paid consultants or received research support and honoraria.”

There are other conflicts, but Gilead is by far the leader. Isn’t it interesting that the only approved drug happens to come from this company? Just a coincidence, right?

To give perspective on how conflicts of interest work on government panels we can look at the criminal case of Vioxx and similar drugs. The FDA’s 2005 advisory board had 32 advisors, ten of which had conflicts of interest with the drugs’ maker Merck. The board voted to keep these dangerous drugs on the market, but had these conflicted members not been involved, the vote would have gone the other way. Eight of these ten said that their ties did not alter their votes. (At least two were honest about it!)

Next time, we’ll turn to the even more controversial hydroxychloroquine, which is off patent and very cheap in comparison. Never has science become so politicized with a media barrage involved…

Medical Monopoly Musings #45
Hydroxychloroquine – Poor Science and Conflicts of Interest

Last time we covered the drug Remdesivir for COVID-19 and how this was bound to conflicts of interest with the drug’s maker Gilead in the approving committee, as well as some questionable science on whether it worked. Now we turn to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which was notably promoted by President Trump.

In this case, we’ll cover the drug in the same way as the previous one, looking at science and conflicts of interest.

The crazy thing is it is not possible to have this conversation in a balanced way anymore as politics is more polarized than ever. Personally, I am critical of lots of Trump’s actions and words, but unlike many, I am not blinded by 100% hatred for the man. There are some things he does and says that I do agree with.

Trump was not the first one to talk about HCQ. This was recommended by scientists across the world first and foremost by French Dr. Didier Raoult who said, “We know how to cure the disease.”

One study touted by the media in the USA was done at the VA showed that more people died when taking HCQ. But there were flaws in this study. As a retrospective study, it wasn’t randomized. More importantly sicker patients were put into the treatment group, which would then make sense as to why they died more.  

An influential study was published in the Lancet showing HCQ increased mortality which seemed to be the death-knell for this drug, so much so that the WHO paused its other ongoing trials of the drug (which were later resumed). This led many to claim that Trump’s disinformation was killing people!

Yet, this study was later retracted when the company behind the data, Surgisphere, wouldn’t share said data. They were behind another NJEM paper that got retracted for the same reason, though this one looked at ACE inhibitors, not HCQ.

Looking deeper, these are the only studies this company’s data has been used for. According to LinkedIn they only had five employees. Checking at the time of writing this, the number has gone down to two. Prior to February of this year the company only had one employee, the founder Dr. Desai, who has had malpractice suits against him.

The URL for the company has been excluded from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. This is highly unusual, in fact, I have never seen any site disappear from it before!

There is much more controversy behind this company and its founder which you can find in the references. In other words, Surgisphere appears to be a shell company whose sole aims appeared to be to make HCQ look bad. So who was behind it?

One thing we find is that the Lancet paper’s lead author, Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a long list of drug and medical company conflicts. He has “personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NupulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene.” This study was “supported” by Brigham and Women’s Hospital where they’re also doing Remdesivir studies with over 1,000 patients, for which they’re receiving funding from Gilead.

Yes, there are still more studies that show no benefit. Many of these don’t use zinc which is said to open the cellular pathway to allow HCQ into the cells to work. Dr. Anthony Cardillo said “[HCQ] really only works in conjunction with zinc. Every patient I have prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within eight to twelve hours they were basically symptom-free and so clinically I am seeing a resolution.”

Importantly, there are many studies that DO show benefit with little to no risk. A public Google document titled, “Sequential CQ / HCQ Research Papers and Reports January to April 20, 2020: Executive Summary Interpretation of the Data In This Report” shows more than 20 trials from across the world. They state, “The HCQ-AZ combination [an antibiotic also used in combination], when started immediately after diagnosis, appears to be a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagious infectivity in most cases.” Doctors across the world are saying it does work.

What about Trump’s conflict of interest for HCQ? A big hubbub was made of this. New York Times reported, “Mr. Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine…As of last year, Mr. Trump reported that his three family trusts each had investments in a Dodge & Cox mutual fund, whose largest holding was in Sanofi.”

Mutual funds own lots of stocks. For this reason mutual funds are exempt from conflict of interest laws (not that that makes it impossible for them to be a problem). Yet his stake in Sanofi is no more than $1,500. More importantly, HCQ is off-patent. While Sanofi makes it, so do many other companies. And its dirt cheap, especially compared to the new patented Remdesivir.

Meanwhile all of the New York Times articles I’ve seen have been silent regarding the conflicts of interest behind the approval of Remdesivir.

This is how “science” is done in our modern world. While most of the time bad science hides in the shadows, this is one of the most blatant examples I’ve seen! Too bad our news cycle has moved on, so the people aren’t thinking about this anymore. Few and far between will hear this story. Remdesivir is still the standard of care being promoted.

Yet, some are fighting back. The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons has sued the FDA, Health & Human Services and BARDA over this to “to end the irrational interference.”

One more personal thought…it’s all misdirection!

What is the drug that will save us? Notice how the entire scientific, political, and medical conversation is on this drug, that drug, or the vaccines. Notice how nothing is mentioned about ANY of the important aspects of health. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be doing drug trials and find those that can help. That’s all well and good, but if it really were about health and saving people we’d be talking about much else.

There are plenty of trials showing common nutrients are working for this disease; zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, phytonutrients, etc. Even Google is censoring those topics as the CEO of YouTube said they will “remove information that is problematic, including anything that is medically unsubstantiated, such as take vitamin C, take turmeric. Anything that would go against WHO guidelines, we will be taking those down.”

Notice the Agendas Going On Here…

The agenda is clear from the beginning. Make drug companies money! That is a constant agenda.

A secondary agenda is that we need a therapy now, but it can’t be too good, because the only true savior is the upcoming vaccine, which goes back to the first agenda.

Notice what is missing from the agenda. Saving lives! Understand that to some sociopaths money absolutely comes over lives…

So when scientists first, and President Trump later, start talking about a cheap and effective drug, that must be clamped down on.

How do we do so? By publishing science showing what is effective and what is not. By showing what is safe and what is dangerous. It doesn’t matter if we have to go so far as to completely make up data to do so, if we get a paper out, the propaganda machine can crank it into high-gear.

The damage is done! No matter the paper gets retracted later or studies are critically flawed. We don’t need to mention it. We’ll just tuck that away into the small corners of the internet. After all, riots are going on so there’s no time to cover it on our news program.

Notice that the big authority paper the New York Times trumps up (pun intended) a very tenuous conflict of interest for Trump and HCQ. But they fail to mention the significantly large conflicts of interest with Gilead and remdesivir.

This is one more example of how journalism is broken.

I only found out about such conflicts because of following investigator Sharyl Attkisson. (She used to work for CBS News but went independent because of the censorship and conflicts of interest that were occurring there. This award winning journalist is now labeled a right-wing conspiracy theorist by her detractors.)

This is Scientism

I first encountered these problems reading Rupert Sheldrake’s book, Science Set Free. He writes, “I have spent all my adult life as a scientist, and I strongly believe in the importance of the scientific approach. Yet I have become increasingly convinced that the sciences have lost much of their vigor, vitality and curiosity. Dogmatic ideology, fear-based conformity and institutional inertia are inhibiting creativity.”

I like science too. It’s great…when it’s done properly. But it has massive flaws, nor is it the only way of seeing the world.

What is called the Science Worshiper’s Method here is not just used by lay people. Unfortunately, scientists themselves fall into this category, especially those with conflicts of interest.

I dug more deeply into this topic as I wrote Powered By Nature as they idea underpins our moving away from nature.

“Science has in many ways become a new religion. “Scientism” is described as the excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. Like many religions, there’s even the promise of an ideal future, a kingdom of science, when our technology makes us immortal and god-like. Also apparent is an arrogance that comes with the belief that it’s just a matter of time until science proves that its own viewpoint is correct. Just as in the corrupt Catholic Church of years past, the scientific community embraces a self-preserving quality for the way things are done. The establishment reaps benefits in keeping things the way they are. And thus, things that threaten it will be put down in a number of ways.”

Sure, science corrects itself sometimes. But it can take a hundred years or more for a “holy” theory to be overthrown. We do not have the kind of time available…

Science is Real Fake!

Our appeal to scientific authority is really, really broken because science can and has been gamed.

You only have to go back to “Tobacco Science” to understand how the scientific game is used.

Yes, science tends to work pretty much perfectly in physics, engineering and chemistry. Once you move outside of these hard science fields where things either work or don’t work, things begin to get more slippery.

If you don’t think that huge corporations have gotten even BETTER at gaming the scientific system you’re falling prey to some of the best propaganda around.

I’ve spent a lot of time on PubMed, a database of science and medicine. I’ve read countless breakdowns of all the ways that science can be flawed both intentionally and not. (At some point I’d like to compile a list of all the ways.)

You can literally find science to back up just about anything you want to believe these days. That makes saying “Science is Real” meaningless.

Once again, this is information warfare. Think of the upregulation and downregulation I covered recently being used in fields of science.

More often than not, it’s not about hiding away information but instead using such an overabundance of it to confuse and muddy the waters. This is “censorship through noise”…and then let us authority figures filter the noise for you.

The science can be completely hollow…and the desired effect still achieved.

How did opioids become so widespread? Didn’t “science” know about the addictive qualities? Turns out science was pretty much made up there too.

A NEJM article reviewing how it happened said this, “In conclusion, we found that a five-sentence letter published in the Journal in 1980 was heavily and uncritically cited as evidence that addiction was rare with long-term opioid therapy. We believe that this citation pattern contributed to the North American opioid crisis by helping to shape a narrative that allayed prescribers’ concerns about the risk of addiction associated with long-term opioid therapy. In 2007, the manufacturer of OxyContin and three senior executives pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges that they misled regulators, doctors, and patients about the risk of addiction associated with the drug.” (emphasis added)

In this case the “hollow science” was cited 608 times over the following years, the majority of which using it as evidence of their low addiction rate.

That’s right. Scientists and doctors were part of the propaganda machine.

I’ve come to the conclusion that it is best to assume some level of conspiracy is going on with anything big because of historical evidence that there often is. Not to say that’s 100%, because it’s not, but to use that as a starting point for hypothesizing.

With what I know, at least when it has to do with health and medicine, we should similarly start with the assumption that any scientific study is false!

…Especially if it is propagated in the mainstream news!

Again, don’t make assumptions that lock you into 100% belief. But use that as a starting point for investigating further.

“Very Rare” Asymptomatic Transmission

A stir was cause recently when a top WHO official said that asymptomatic transmission is “very rare”. Understand that this is the key point of everything we’re doing! Shutting down businesses. Social distancing. Mask mandates (to be covered shortly).

Instead of asking sick people to stay home so they don’t infect others, we need healthy people to stay home because they might have the virus, not know it, and spread it to other people.

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” said Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, Technical Lead COVID-19 WHO Health Emergencies Programme. “We are constantly looking at this data, and we’re trying to get more information from countries to truly answer this question…It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.”

“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases, they’re following contacts, and they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare. Much of that is not published in the literature.”

Here’s one such study that is published. “A Study on Infectivity of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Carriers” which found that of 455 contacts of an asymptomatic carrier, none of them contracted SARS-CoV-2.  

This caused an outcry and Dr. Kerkhove walked backed her statements. “I was responding to a question at the press conference. I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that. I was just trying to articulate what we know. And in that, I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.”

Here’s the kicker…“Some estimates of around 40% of transmission may be due to asymptomatic, but those are from models, so I didn’t include that in my answer yesterday, but wanted to make sure that I covered that here,” Kerkhove said. (emphasis added)

To sum this up:

1. From the DATA available both published and unpublished asymptomatic transmission is very rare.
2. But models and estimates say asymptomatic transmission may be big.
3. So our policy and recommendations are to go with the models and estimates and not the scientific data.

The question to ask is the WHO a science based organization…or a political one?

(If you read my work on the WHO you know the answer to that one.)

Remember that despite the 100,000+ deaths in the US and 463,000+ worldwide (big numbers that instill fear), the death rate is nothing compared to what the models predicted. We know games have been played with the numbers, not to mention inaccurate testing, and yet the CDC says the total death rate is between 1% at worst and 0.2%, with their best estimate being 0.4%.

Of these, almost all of them are 70 to 80+ years old, the people that are similarly taken out by the flu (despite there being a vaccine for that one).

So now let us turn to the great face mask debate…

Are Face Masks Effective?

If we collectively can’t even figure out something as simple as face masks, what chance do we have with bigger issues like racism, global warming, poverty, economic policy?

Seeing the polarization of this play out on social media has been entertaining.

I’m in California and as of a couple days ago, Governor Newsom signed an executive order that face masks are required when in public, including outdoors if social distancing isn’t possible.

We’ll put this clear and total contradiction aside for a second…

What boggles me the most is that people trust our health officials and organizations despite how inconsistent they are.

Fauci, the CDC and the WHO have now all flip-flopped on this issue. Is it because new science has come to light?

Because make no mistake, the previous science did NOT show that wearing masking for asymptomatic people did anything.

I refer back to the 2019 report from the WHO where they said this:

OVERALL RESULT OF EVIDENCE ON FACE MASKS

Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Quality of evidence

There is a moderate overall quality of evidence that face masks do not have a substantial effect on transmission of influenza.

Resource implications

Reusable cloth face masks are not recommended. Medical face masks are generally not reusable, and an adequate supply would be essential if the use of face masks was recommended. If worn by a symptomatic case, that person might require multiple masks per day for multiple days of illness.

RECOMMENDATION:

Face masks worn by asymptomatic people are conditionally recommended in severe epidemics or pandemics, to reduce transmission in the community. Disposable, surgical masks are recommended to be worn at all times by symptomatic individuals when in contact with other individuals. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure.

In summation, they say there is a moderate level of scientific evidence that they do NOT work, but there is a plausible mechanism by which they could so they might be recommended in certain circumstances. Once again, the recommendation actually goes against the science!

The WHO’s April 6^th, 2020 coronavirus guidelines said this: “there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

But flip-flopping in their June 5^th advice: “The use of masks is part of a comprehensive package of the prevention and control measures that can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including COVID-19. Masks can be used either for protection of healthy persons (worn to protect oneself when in contact with an infected individual) or for source control (worn by an infected individual to prevent onward transmission).”

On March 8^th, 2020. Dr. Fauci told 60 Minutes, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks…There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet. But it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences; people keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face…But when you think masks you should think of healthcare providers needing them and people who are ill.”

Later he’s saying, “I do it [wear a mask] when I’m in the public for the reasons that, a) I want to protect myself and protect others. And also because I want to make it be a symbol for people to see. That that’s the kind of thing you should be doing.”

The US Surgeon General tweeted this:

On April 3^rd, the CDC flip-flopped as well.

But that’s flip-flopped because of new evidence right?

Here’s the CDC’s page on “Recommendation Regarding the Use of Cloth Face Coverings, Especially in Areas of Significant Community-Based Transmission”

Do you see that? On their recommendation page, not a single one of the studies is actually about masks or face coverings. Its all about asymptomatic carriers.

Isn’t that the wrong thing to be covering on this page with scientific backing?

Notice the pattern. News article has headline about the new mask recommendation. They link to the CDC but don’t mention science at all. Neither does the CDC, at least not for whats relevant.

Digging deeper on the CDC website I did find this.

A May review of the data posted on the CDC’s website states, “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” (emphaiss added)

Looking for more research, here’s an April 6^th study from the Annals of Internal Medicine, “In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”

That’s infected patients let alone healthy people!

I’ve seen people from OSHA talking about how the recommendations do not fit their guidelines this as this video explains too.

Hmmm, I just picked up a pulse oximeter to test if a mask lowers oxygenation for myself. Let me conduct a little experiment… (I’ll report back later my results.)

I also came across a BMJ study that said “This study is the first RCT [random controlled trial, aka the gold standard of studies] of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended.” (emphasis added)

If you want to go even deeper here’s a couple articles reviewing more science against masks:

• COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data
• Coronavirus Fact-Check #6: Does wearing a mask do anything?

And to balance it out, I’ll point out an article by Nassim Taleb, whose work I respect, on why we should wear masks. The biggest point of disagreement I have there is that there IS a good amount of evidence that masks don’t work as I’ve covered here.

Personally, I’ll wear a mask in a store as is required at every store where I live. Their store, their rules. (I see this as the same as no shirt, no shoes, no service, just add no mask in there.)

If I was to visit a nursing home I would certainly take precautions.

But no, I’m sorry I will NOT wear a mask outside. I do not give the state of California that power over me.

It’s Not Really About the Masks…Preparation for What’s Next

Fauci mentions it’s a symbol and I think he’s right about that! I see people talking about how it’s a submission ritual. Submission to the fear, to the propaganda.

The symbol or lack of it certainly becomes a trigger for social reinforcement.

But that’s not really what I’m talking about here.

The other day I saw this article headline and had to click in:

Study: 100% face mask use could crush second, third COVID-19 wave

Finally a study FOR masks that I could look into. The study’s titled “A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with ‘lock-down’ in managing the COVID-19 pandemic”

Ding, ding, ding! Alarm bells ringing. It’s a modeling study…because the models have been so effective thus far with SARS-CoV-2, right? (After all, we’re already basing asymptomatic transmission off of models instead of the data.)

Layers and layers of bad science does not make the underlying assumptions true. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true. But, unfortunately, both of these do make things more BELIEVABLE.

This paper contains some equations that are above my head.

Since that’s Greek to me, I should just trust the experts because they’re smarter than me, right?

Authority figures never lead us wrong, right?

There couldn’t possibly be an untrue assumption underlying all that math, could there?

To me, it’s not really about the masks…I’ve seen this messaging before.

The SF Gate article states “Homemade coverings that catch only 50 percent of exhaled droplets would provide a “population-level benefit,” they concluded. As has been well-publicized, wearing a mask primarily protects others from yourself, rather than the other way around. It is not a sign that you consider others a danger.”

It’s not about your health, it’s about the community health.

As I said, I’ve seen this before, as this exact messaging has grown stronger and stronger around vaccines the past few years.

And that is what this is all about. The propaganda of the masks fits hand in glove with the propaganda for the upcoming vaccine.

“Everyone needs to do it.”

“It’s not about you. It’s for other people’s protection, especially the weak.”

“You are dangerous if you don’t have a mask on/the vaccine.”

“You can’t be allowed at school/can’t travel without one.”

Never mind the logical inconsistency of it. We ALL need to vaccinate to protect those whose immune systems are too weak to handle vaccines…yet we vaccinate babies the day they are born without investigating if their immunity is strong or weak.

The agenda is already in action…

New York tried to pass mandates for the coronavirus vaccine before it’s even succeeded in “warp speed” vaccine safety trials. This was fortunately defeated.

In Colorado you can still have children exempted from vaccines for school, but now you must go through re-education if you do. This law passed.

Propagating the Propaganda

So how does the scientific propaganda work?

Some science is put out showing masks work. The media propagates the message. They do not propagate any of the science or naysayers that don’t fit the agenda.

The governing bodies and officials line up to the approved message, even flip-flopping as necessary. That’s fine, people don’t remember the past much anymore.

The politicians push orders making it law.

I literally revised my diagram as I finished writing this article.

Agenda comes first. Science next. Media and government to follow.

And by then the propaganda is strong enough to grab 95% of people, who then work to socially police one another.

Perhaps that’s why when I posted on Facebook “Someone help me out. Where is this new science that proves mask wearing works?” I got lots of people on both sides of the debate…and not a single one of them actually linked to a study.

Today is #exposebillgates day. At the time of writing this is trending on Twitter with almost 100,000 tweets. (And who knows is that number is accurate or not!)

If you’re new here I would recommend reading Bill Gates: Is He Good or Evil? first.

If you don’t do that, or just need a quick refresher, in that post I detail how we can lump Gates into four possible categories depending on what set of information we look at.

1. There’s the saintly philanthropist.
2. There’s the regular human being with both virtues and flaws.
3. There’s the money and power hungry sociopath.
4. And there’s “evil” category in which I lump: eugenicist and/or satanist and/or pedophile.

I’m not here to tell you what to believe. Lord knows we’ve got enough people doing that! I’m here to present information and help you to draw your own conclusions.

There are plenty of people that are calling Gates evil! The problem with that is that it is increasing polarization.

This recent video from JP Sears covers the left vs. the right. “It’s obvious that more division is the solution to all our problems”

But this just as well could be any other polarizing topic…such as Bill Gates.

How many people are not willing to accept Bill Gates is anything but a saintly philanthropist because the criticisms sound so unbelievable?

He gives away more money then anyone so he must be the best ever , right?

How many people dive straight into the deepest, darkest conspiracy theories about Gates…thus making most people immediately dismiss it?

A nuanced discussion. That’s what we need more of right now…in SO MANY different areas.

So let’s look at a criticism of Gates and his Foundation that is NON-conspiratorial.

I’m pulling a lot of information here from No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy by Linsey McGoey. All of the following quotes are from this book, unless otherwise noted.

This book stretched my thinking out of the polarized zones to how Gates may better fit in the middle, either categories #2 or #3. But you be the judge for yourself…

Problems with Philanthropy and Foundations

I discussed some of the problems of philanthropy non necessarily being philanthropy in my earlier article about Robber Baron Philanthropists. This book similarly looks at John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and many others.

The main hypothesis here seems to be, even with completely philanthropic intentions, is philanthropy working?

“Critics of philanthrocapitalism raise three main concerns. The first centres on the accountability and transparency of private philanthropic players – or lack thereof…The Gates Foundation…is accountable to no one other than its three trustees: Bill, Melinda, and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett….The second concern is that philanthropy, by channelling private funds towards public services, erodes support for governmental spending on health and education…The third major concern is that many philanthropists, both today and in the past, earned their fortunes through business strategies that greatly exacerbate the same social and economic inequalities that philanthropists purport to remedy.”

To me TRANSPARENCY is one of the most important topics. Without transparency, things can be hidden. At the very least this gives rise to conspiracy theories. At the best, this allows true conspiracies to thrive.

John Perkins, former economic hitman, made the same criticism of foundations. Why use ruthless business practices, paying low wages to workers as Rockefeller and Carnegie did, only to give away the money later? Why stifle competition to make more money like they and Gates did to consolidate profits?

“What’s remarkable about the growing number of foundations over the past two decades is that they haven’t had any effect on reducing economic inequality. In fact the opposite appears to be the case. What to make of the fact that growing philanthropy and growing inequality seem to go hand in hand? Does philanthropy actually make the rich richer and the poor poorer?”

Growing inequality is a problem…one that leads to revolution in time. Should we look at this as the main indicator that philanthropy as its being done today is NOT working?

(As many people are pointing out right now, why is it that mega-businesses Amazon and Walmart get to stay open while small business that sell the same things are shut down?)

“The Gates Foundation frequently offers grants to for-profit companies such as, to name just three recent beneficiaries, Vodacom, Ogilvy, and ABC News (which is owned by Disney and which pays many of its news staff seven- and eight-figure salaries). Charity law in the US does not prohibit direct grants from a private philanthropist to for-profit companies…On its website, the Gates Foundation emphasizes that the Gates’s tax savings are minor in comparison to their disbursements, and that’s true. The website notes that from 1994 to 2006, Bill and Melinda donated more than $26 billion, resulting in savings of 8.3 per cent, or just over $2 billion. And yet, is a gift from the Gates Foundation to a highly profitable company really the best use of money that, if it had been taxed as income rather than placed in a trust, could have benefited federal or state relief programmes?”

This is a piece we’ll be coming back to. Did you know that tax-deductible grants can go to for-profit companies? This can then be used in a variety of self-serving ways where conflicts of interests are apparent.

“In their 2002 article ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Kramer and Porter asserted that to be genuinely ‘philanthropic’, corporations should deliberately pursue philanthropic strategies that align with their own financial goals. This, they suggest, would ensure that companies obtain a ‘competitive edge’ through giving, helping them to earn greater financial returns as a direct result of their charitable endeavors.” (emphasis added)

Part of the problem in our world is fiduciary responsibility of corporations meant to maximize profits for their shareholders, without caring for environmental concerns or people. This philosophy has even made its way into the charitable sector.

If you can be philanthropic in a self-interested way that increases your competitiveness and financial returns, doesn’t that become necessary to increase shareholder value? But is this really philanthropy in any sense of the word, anymore?

Funding Media

To me, this is probably the most important part as I’ve been investigating propaganda and narrative control (and will be continuing too in the near future).

In other words if you are engaging in non-transparent, conflicted interest or even worse things, how do you get away from it?

By funding the media of course!

“For decades, health activists in the US and internationally have suggested that current patent laws are a significant obstacle to achieving worldwide access to affordable medicines. Bill Gates does not agree. And his outspoken views on patents, combined with enormous cash injections towards the health policies he prefers, may have single-handedly thwarted efforts to open pharmaceutical markets to more generic competition. The influential health scholar James Love has noted the problem concisely: ‘[The Gates Foundation] funds most of the journalism on this topic, and they have been hardline advocates for strong patent protection, since the 1990s.’…Through his foundation, he’s spent hundreds of millions in tax-deductible grants to convey the public message that aid ‘works’.” (emphasis added)

If you can fund not only the programs you want, but the coverage of said programs, doesn’t that give you a bit too much power?

From the Gates Foundation 2018 annual report we see a large chunk, half a billion dollars goes towards Global Policy and Advocacy.

Here you can see that broken down.

Now, this is certainly covering much more than just funding to media but that’s in there. Here’s an example from a previous year:

“In the early months of 2013, the Gates Foundation hosted a ‘strategic media partners’ meeting at its headquarters in Seattle – representatives from the New York Times, the Guardian, NBC, NPR, and the Seattle Times all came. The aim of the event writes Tom Paulson, a Seattle-based reporter, was to ‘improve the narrative’ of media coverage of global aid and development, highlighting good news stories rather than tales of waste or corruption. In 2013, the foundation gave Ogilvy, a global public relations firm, a $100,000 grant for a project titled ‘Aid is Working: Tell the World’. Ogilvy PR is part of Ogilvy and Mather, one of the largest marketing companies in the world. That Ogilvy is a beneficiary of Gates Foundation largesse raises the same question as does its grants to Vodacom: why can’t a highly profitable company cover its own marketing or business-expansion efforts. And, secondly, if aid flows are working well, why do they need a masterful PR campaign to convey that message effectively?…Can aid really be said to be working when US and EU subsidies and import controls continue to thwart African growth? Can we be as sanguine as Gates is about current patent rules when poor and middle-income nations are leading the charge to alter them?” (emphasis added)

Remember that before Bill Gates was seen as a philanthropist, he was a ruthless businessman. Everyone agrees with this! What were the business tactics involved with the press back then?

“Resentful of negative press attention to the company’s business tactics, Microsoft’s management adopted a practice of blacklisting journalists. John Dvorak, a columnist at PC Magazine, describes how Microsoft management would list reporters on a whiteboard with the comments ‘Okay’, ‘Sketchy’, or ‘Needs Work’. Many reports believed, Dvorak writes, that if you ended up in the ‘needs work’ category, Microsoft would take pains to try and have you fired. Dvorak himself ended up on Microsoft’s blacklist, something he only realized because of documents unearthed during the discovery process of the Comes v. Microsoft lawsuit in Iowa. Dvorak adds, rather dryly, that while Microsoft failed to completely unseat him, threats from the company did succeed in seeing him removed as a licensed columnist for PC Magazine Italy.” (emphasis added)

I think it is a sign that things are wrong when people can’t talk publicly about things for fear of backlash. When we hear about this in relation to a philanthropic foundation, something must surely be off.

“He emphasized the need to protect his identity due to concerns over a backlash from the Gates Foundation. ‘Maybe I’m a paranoid guy,’ he said. ‘But I’m scared out of my mind talking to you right now.’…Gates Foundation’s funding of media outlets leads journalists to censor negative criticism; those in the field refer to the problem as the ‘Bill Chill Effect’. Anna made this point: ‘You have a foundation that is essentially paying for areas that it wants to pursue, and also supporting otherwise independent international agencies or norm-setting agencies. Once you have them on the payroll, their voices are compromised. That’s why you’re not going to get anyone to talk on the record…[this] reality has to come to light.’” (emphasis added)

Alan Mccleod of MintPressNews, an independent news site, wrote that the “Gates Foundation underwrites the entire Global Development section of the Guardian, and has given the British newspaper over $9 million. Studying its donation database, it transpires it has also contributed over $3 million to NBC Universal, over $4 million to the influential French newspaper, Le Monde, over $4.5 million to NPR, $1 million to Al-Jazeera, and an astonishing $49 million to the BBC’s Media Action program, to name only a few…Gates himself is the head of a gigantic media empire. We already rely on Microsoft for social media (LinkedIn), entertainment (Xbox), hardware and software like the Windows Phone and Windows OS. The company also owns stakes in media giants like Comcast and AT&T. And the “MS” in “MSNBC” stands for “Microsoft.””

This is why we see such glowing pieces about the Gates Foundation in many places. This is the public relations that makes “everyone” know that Bill Gates is a saintly philanthropist.

Such conflicts of interest are seldom if ever disclosed. Tim Schwab at The Nation did a great article called “Bill Gate’s Charity Paradox”. He starts off talking about the Netflix series, Inside Bill’s Brain, which, “underlines Gates’s expansive intellect by interviewing Bernie Noe, described as a friend of Gates. “That’s a gift, to read 150 pages an hour,” says Noe. “I’m going to say it’s 90 percent retention. Kind of extraordinary.” [Director Davis] Guggenheim doesn’t tell audiences that Noe is the principal of Lakeside School, a private institution to which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given $80 million. The filmmaker also doesn’t mention the extraordinary conflict of interest this presents: The Gateses used their charitable foundation to enrich the private school their children attend, which charges students $35,000 a year.”

We need to look at not just financial conflicts of interest in business and charity, but media conflicts of interest too.

Gates Foundation on Education

While most of the attention gets pin on areas surrounding health, let’s not forget that The Gates Foundation has been involved in education for a long time.

“In 1997, Gates expanded into education. Through a gift of $200 million, he established a second fund, the Gates Library Foundation. The Library Foundation built on an earlier programme initiated at Microsoft – donating personal computer software to libraries. The donation of Microsoft equipment raised eyebrows among some critics. The late historian Theodore Roszak suggested that ‘this doesn’t even count as philanthropy. It’s just seeding the market. You’re simply lubricating future sales.’”

Charitable donations that bring about future sales…a great business tactic. But not the most ethical, most people would agree.

“[T]he New York Times ran an op-ed in which Gates was described as ‘the real secretary of education.’…The Gates Foundation is now the largest philanthropic support of US primary and secondary education.”

“Diane Ravitch, a historian and former US assistant secretary of education during the administration of George Bush Sr., has suggested that US public education is being undermine by a select group of philanthropists she calls ‘the Billionaire Boys Club’. Never before, she suggests, has a single group of philanthropists had such a strong reshaping national education policy. And the most influential of them all is Bill Gates.”

There are tons of details in the book about No Child Left Behind with its standardized testing, Common Core, ranking teachers effectiveness that I won’t get into that the Gates Foundation has supported. Read the book if you want more. Just to sum up, none of those covered in the book have worked well!

“When it comes to public education in the US, there’s little indication yet that many of the initiatives the foundation has spearheaded have in fact been positive for students. Despite a history of policy reversals and failed efforts, the foundation continues to be upheld as an exemplary and uniquely results-oriented organization. And there’s nothing stopping the foundation from itself promoting that perception of its work, a problem that irks teachers. One former teacher, Anthony Cody, summarized this concern clearly in an interview with Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post: I have found it remarkable that an education reform project built around the concept of ‘accountability’ has no mechanism, no means by which we, the public, can hold its sponsors accountable. We have ‘bad teachers’ who must be held accountable. Schools and students that must be held accountable. But Bill Gates himself? Who holds him and his employees accountable for the devastating effects their reforms have had?’ The answer is no one.”

In Microsoft, Bill was accountable to shareholders. He was also accountable to governments for breaking anti-trust laws as ultimately occurred. But with his foundation, as there is far less scrutiny, it looks like he is less accountable than ever before. There is no anti-trust equivalent with foundations.

The Foundations Financial Investments

“Mitch Kapor, the billionaire founder of Lotus software, expressed to me his surprise and dismay at Gates’s intransigency on the topic of ethical investing: ‘The Gates Foundation manages its endowment along conventional lines, i.e., it does not pay attention to mission or impact. I recently spoke to Bill about this and he spoke about this fact as though it were out of his hands and that he didn’t have the ability to change the approach to investment.”

This is similar to the line of reasoning behind treating employees and customers well in growing a business, versus being ruthless in order to win. Here we see that the foundations investment is only about return, rather to consider what a business may be causing in the world (its mission and impact).

How you can say you’re interested in health if you are so heavily invested in health-destroying companies? At the very least it is hypocritical.

Indeed, what we see is that Bill Gates himself, and his foundation have increased in wealth despite (or in fact because of!) giving away so much money.

“For years, with the exception of tobacco companies, the foundation chose to invest in companies offering strong financial returns regardless of negative health effects…the foundation’s stake, for example, in GEO group, a leader in the for-profit prison industry…Until 2014, the foundation had a large stake in Coca-Cola and McDonald’s…The Gates Foundation has a policy of not commenting publicly on its investment decisions.”

If you really wanted to do good wouldn’t you want to put money behind companies that are profitable but are supporting your stated mission just in how they do business?

Agriculture and Nutrition

Here is one such example of their investment.

“In 2010, the foundation purchased shares in Monsanto, an investment worth about $23 million…later the foundation sold its shares in Monsanto, but it continues to collaborate on philanthropic ventures aimed at expanding the company’s presence in African markets.”

Monsanto, who is now wholly owned by pharmaceutical giant Bayer, has been rated as the most evil company in the world several times. Not just for their GMO foods, but how they then use patents on these to pressure farmers and often times run them out of business. They’ve even used an “intelligence center” to target activists, authors and others that disagree with their actions.

“In 2006, in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation created the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)… Bill Gates has repeatedly suggested that we need to extend the Green Revolution to Africa. His comments have sparked outrage in developing regions. Vandana Shiva, a renowned Indian environmental activist, has condemned the Gates Foundation’s links to Monsanto, calling the foundation the ‘greatest threat to farmers in the developing world’… Even unlikely figures such as Warren Buffett’s son have emerged as vocal critics of the Gates Foundation’s work in agriculture.”

Here is Shiva speaking about him:

Like the failed education reforms, the “Green Revolution” showed some early positives but longer-term has been a big failure. It enriches big companies while making the poor poorer, not just financially but health-wise too. (Witness all the lawsuits going on regarding Monsanto’s Roundup causing cancer right now.)

“The Gates Foundation has championed the idea that Coca-Cola should be upheld as a key partner in global health policy-making. In 2010, Melinda Gates gave a TED talk titled ‘What Non-Profits Can Learn from Coca-Cola,’ where she exhorted development experts to adopt the beverage giants distribution strategies….But her suggestion ignores a history of objectionable labour practices, including suggestions that the company’s subsidiaries hired a far-right paramilitary group to intimidate and murder union members at the company’s Colombian bottling plants…The foundation has also partnered with Coca-Cola…in 2010, for example, the Gates Foundation provided a $7.5 million grant to TechnoServe…to ‘create new market opportunities for local farmer whose fruit will be used for Coca-Cola’s locally-produced and sold fruit juices. Through its shares in Berkshire Hathaway, the Gates Foundation is heavily invested in Coca-Cola…when a philanthropic foundation that is heavily invested in Coca-Cola chooses to set up a charitable initiative that enlists poor farmers in cultivating fruit for Coca-Cola, the question is – does this still count as philanthropy? And if not, then why should the Gates Foundation continue to receive the generous tax exemptions it currently enjoys?”

Here we see several of the themes brought up in this article. The Gates Foundation investing in a company that is having devastating health effects the world over. The Gates Foundation using its grants in a way that benefits the company it has invested in showing a clear conflict of interest, yet getting tax benefits from doing so. And whitewashing some horrible corporate practices along the way.

Gates Foundation on Health

The thing that the Gates Foundation is doing more than anything else is vaccines. Vaccines themselves are a polarizing topics when they shouldn’t be. There should be room for the consideration that not every vaccine is great. After all how many diseases don’t have vaccines and not for lacking of trying, HIV, malaria, Lyme, coronavirus (I’m talking about the ones before this years epidemic)?

These either didn’t work at all and/or had devastating side effects.

And this doesn’t mean that all vaccines are bad either. Can we please unpolarize and talk about the risks and benefits without be immediately labeled looney anti-vaxxers?

“Donald Henderson, a former WHO epidemiologist who led the WHO’s successful campaign against smallpox during the 1960s, has suggested that polio eradication may be a misplaced pursuit: it strips money from other areas of need, forcing nations to prioritize polio immunization at the expense of vaccination coverage for other diseases. Arthur Caplan, an eminent bioethicist who himself suffered from polio as a child, has also criticized Gates’s obsession with polio eradication, pointing out that ‘government budgets and resources in poor nations are diverted from other far more pressing local problems to try and capture the last marginal cases.’…And despite vaccine research funded by the Gates Foundation and elsewhere, the difficulty of fully eradicating vaccine-derived poliovirus, a mutation of the virus contained in the oral vaccine, still lingers. ‘I can’t see myself how we can satisfactorily eliminate the vaccine-derived strains’. Henderson said. ‘I just don’t think it can be done.’”

I’ve heard various contrary viewpoints but let’s say for the sake of argument that the polio vaccine largely eradicated polio. Even so, right now it is giving some people polio! And in fact, there is more vaccine-derived polio now than there is of wild polio.

“[Bill Gates fixation on eradicating polio] seems to contradict an outspoken claim from Melinda and Bill: that they choose to invest their money where they can have the most impact in terms of lives saved. ‘We literally go down the chart of the greatest inequities and give where we can effect the greatest change’, Melinda said in 2008…In 2012, there were only 223 reported case of polio worldwide – a number that has shrunk from 350,000 in 1988, or a drop of 99 per cent. By any measure, polio eradication efforts have been highly successful even if rare cases continue to persist. And by any measure, polio is not one of the world’s greatest killers.” (emphasis added)

Should the almost half billion dollars still be going after that? Again from 2018 annual report we see over half a billion dollars going strictly to polio!

Compare that to nutrition. What about…

“In recent years, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) mainly stroke, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease – have become the biggest cause of death in poor and middle-income countries, outstripping deaths from infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Despite the staggering cost of deaths from chronic diseases worldwide, the vast majority of philanthropic donors, including the Gates Foundation, have shown scant interest in tackling the problem. To date, the Gates Foundation has invested less than 4 per cent of funding into research on non-communicable diseases.”

Is this the smart, logical business-like focus on objectives. The objective is clearly to eradicate polio…but should it be? I think Gates wants that feather in his cap, “I’m the man responsible for eradicating polio.”

Let’s look at a different vaccine.  

“The Gates Foundation has called loudly and bullishly for national governments to prioritize the inclusion of a number of different high-cost vaccines on national immunization programmes…The Gates Foundation’s funding of recent HPV trials in India is a good example. A few years ago, the foundation funded the Seattle-based NGO Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (generally referred to by its acronym PATH) to carry out ‘demonstration trials’ testing human papillomavirus in approximately 23,000 girls aged ten to fourteen in the Indian states of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. The two HPV vaccines distributed, Gardasil and Cervarix, are manufactured by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline respectively…Gardasil has been a top-seller for Merck, earning total global sales of $1.5 billion in 2011, a windfall for the company in the financially lean years that had plagued it since it emerged that the company had manipulated trial data for Vioxx, its bestselling painkiller drug linked to heart failure in tens of thousands of users. Merck pleased to criminal charges…When Gardasil was first in production, Merck sales team reportedly had a catchy unofficial nickname for the HPV vaccine: Help Pay for Vioxx…[PATH] began a two-year vaccination drive in 2009. Most of the vaccines were given to girls at ashram paathshalas (boarding schools for tribal children), sidestepping the need to seek parental consent for the shots…[A parliamentary committee] found that PATH had violated ethical guidelines in a  number of alarming ways…PATH has justified this omission by insisting that the vaccine trials were ‘demonstration trials’, and therefore subject to looser safety requirements thana  standard clinical trial. The parliamentary report into the vaccine trials lambasted that rationalization, stressing that the HPV trials should have been deemed a clinical trial because it was a ‘study of a pharmaceutical product carried out on human participants’ and ‘four of five primary outcome measures proposed in the study related to evaluation of the safety of the vaccine’. In 2010, the Indian Council of Medical Ethics admitted that its own ethical protocols had been flouted in permitting the trials. In August 2013 a separate parliamentary committee reiterated the severe criticism of PATH, stating that the NGO’s ‘sole aim has been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers who would have reaped windfall profits had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the UIP [universal immunization program] of the Country.’” (emphasis added)

I previously covered the topic of so-called “informed consent” in my article on the WHO. I don’t know about you but I do not believe people should be part of medical experiments without knowing it.

This is a good one to further investigate conflicts of interest.

Referring to some pictures of Schwab’s article The Nation, note the conflicts of interest in the above named pharmaceutical companies (actually pretty much all of them). There’s Merck and there’s GlaxoSmithKline.

Understand the complex web that is woven. The Gates Foundation owns stock in Merck. It gives tax-deductible grants to GSK. It funds another NGO called PATH which then uses products from Merck and GSK in trials, in an attempt to get a product mandated form every single person in a country!

Look at all the health organizations the Gates Foundations funds, which helps set these policies, and how many pharmaceuticals the Gates Foundation is involved in.

Any image is going to be just a small part of the picture.

If you think that conflicts of interest can sometimes be problematic then this definitely needs more investigation.

Concluding Thoughts

“A young health researcher based at the University of Cape Cost, in western Ghana, echoed the sentiment: ‘From my point of view, it’s more like [the Gates Foundation] are selling technology than solving problems. Most of their calls have to do with developing some new technology or vaccines.”

This sounds to me a lot like what Bill Gates himself in that Netflix special said as I covered previously. “Any problem I will look at how technical innovation can help solve that problem. It’s the one thing I know and the one thing I’m good at. And so, you know, that’s my hammer. Uh…And so lots of problems look like nails because I’ve got a hammer.”

Look, I have no clue if Bill Gates is really evil at heart. But I can not blindly trust the man as his PR seems to have most people doing.

This man has far too much power and philosophically, I don’t see technology as the answer to all our problems, considering technology created many of them! Geoengineering and blocking out the sun are not good answers to environmental problems. GMO mosquitoes are already out now as if there’s no possibly negative consequences to that. The stuff he wants to do, is doing, is crazy so is it any wonder people are up in arms about it?

The only way I see to stop him is to #exposebillgates so that enough people do not consent to his plans.

Knowledge is power which is why propaganda is powerful. But due to polarization if we’re going to convince people we can’t dive off the deep end. Start with some basics facts like:

• Making tax-deductible donations to for-profit companies he’s invested in, a clear conflict of interest.
• Or that despite giving away his fortune, he’s richer than ever now.
• Or his foundation’s investments directly contradict what they say they’re trying to do in health.

Get the conversation going. Someday we’ll be able to talk about things in an open and honest way. At least I hope so.

If not, it does look like we have an even more tightly controlled future in front of us.

My plan was to cover Bill Gates in tons of detail because, like it or not, he’s an extremely important person for the future of civilization. It’s a daunting task!

…but other people have done it and done it well.

So I’m pointing you to James Corbett and his 4-part video series, roughly two hours, on Bill Gates.

Here it is on Youtube (for now…)

On Corbett’s site he has the video in many other forms including downloads. Transcripts with references for everything is given. What I like about James is he doesn’t tell you what to think. He invites you to look for yourself making it easier to do (something I like to emulate).

Given my earlier post where I talked about Gates being in possible buckets from saint to satanist, where does this documentary leave me?

I’m still unsure. There’s certainly some evidence of eugenics. There’s definitely evidence of sociopathic drive for more money and power.

But I invite you to watch it for yourself and be the judge.

In other news…

Riots are happening in the USA now, in Minneapolis and many other places. I didn’t know that cops killing a black man would be the spark, but I did talk about how a powder keg was being created that could lead to stuff like this back on March 21st.

(While there’s a possibility that riots could have been sparked from George Floyd’s murder under pre-corona conditions, all the quarantine, economic devastation, etc. certainly amplified the unrest leading this to being much bigger than it otherwise would have been.)

President Trump has been fact checked on Twitter talking about mail fraud and in response issues an Executive Order to say that social media platforms will not have platform protections anymore due to bias.

I agree with Trump on this one because I have seen the evidence of bias and censorship on these platforms. Certainly against conservative viewpoints but also against “conspiracy theories” (aka independent viewpoints) and “vaccine misinformation” (more often than not, vaccine facts).

But I’m one of those rare individuals that isn’t die-hard Trump supporter or hater. I see both sides.

I also agree that Trumps says some stupid things on Twitter. Regarding the riots and deploying the National Guard there he said, “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Why would you say something like this just knowing how much it would stir up people hate everything you say? Is that intentional?

The polarization continues ramping up!

I do believe certain forces want the USA to divide into something of a civil war. Recall the Great Leap Forward hypothesis I put forward last week.

More destruction, not less, actually makes that all easier to do.

More violence means more police and military power steps in. This means more sweeping legislation is easier to drive through in order to “keep people safe”. The more easily the technocrats can deploy their software solutions on people.

And think about it. We’ve got over five months until election time! (Or even the possibility of suspensions of elections.)

How long until we see the “radical left” clashing with the “Q Anon Church”? After all, each side knows with 100% certainty that they’re trying to stop ultimate tyranny from occurring.

Get ready for the ride to become even wilder!

Stay vigilant,
Logan Christopher

P.S. My work life has gotten busier, so I have less time to devote here. I’m aiming to get out an update once a week on Saturday’s moving forward now.

The topic I’m thinking about mostly now is “Narrative Control.” To me understand HOW a thing is actually done is critical to being able to see through all the layers of deception. It’s not just fake news but so much more. Thus, understanding the many and diverse tactics is what I’m diving into and will be sharing soon.

We’re slowly coming out of lockdown, right?

Well, Los Angeles says they’re not opening up for another three months. 

California’s Governor Newsom put out rules involving no deaths for two weeks with less than one case per 10,000 people for a county to open up! (As if two weeks of additional shut down won’t cause one suicide or death from other reasons…)

That sounds like a ridiculously unachievable goal to me. Lots of other people thought so, so thankfully these rules have been relaxed.

I’ll say it again. It’s not really about the virus. That’s the misdirection.

That’s why we seen now a bait-in-switch of how flatten the curve (which if you recall was all about preventing the hospitals from getting overwhelmed, which except for select places like New York hasn’t happened almost anywhere) has now become wait it out until a cure (read vaccine) is available. We need to stay closed to prevent people from catching the disease…that we now absolutely know is not much worse than a bad flu even with the inflated stats!

What is really going on? There’s a lot and today I want to try to get to the bigger picture of what may be in store.

China’s Great Leap Forward

How’s your history? The Great Leap Forward occurred in China under Mao from 1958 to 1962. The attempt was to collectivize people under communist principles and rapidly industrialize the nation. To go from predominately agrarian to technologically on par with the US and UK.

The result was somewhere between 18 and 48 million people dying, mostly of starvation. Central planning and trying to please the bosses with inflated stats did not work out well. (Looks like they has some poor models too!)

This video will give a short overview for those that aren’t familiar with it.

Praise for the Great Leap Forward

I found out about the following quote and article from investigative journalist Jon Rappoport. It helped tie together some ideas for me, ultimately leading to this post.

David Rockefeller wrote in The New York Times, back in 1973, after visiting China to open up trade there, under the Nixon administration.

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose…The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”

In my book, tens of millions dead is not a definition of successful!

But to someone concerned with shaping society to their desires it may just be the breaking of a few eggs.

Remember that this is the guy that said in his Memoirs (2003), “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

David Rockefeller died just a few years ago. But there are plenty of people that think like him still operating both in the light and the shadows.

Would such powerful people today care about millions dying in order to “build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will” under the guise of protecting people from the coronavirus?

Would they care that the economy is shredded, small businesses are decimated, while big businesses get bailed out or thrive?

No, I don’t think they would care.

So, why do I bring up this half-century old story? Because it’s a good analogy for what we appear to be going through.

The American Great Leap Forward

Remember when I said in one of my first articles in this series how certain people in our government were jealous of China Communist Party’s totalitarian control? Recently, I came across more proof to back up that claim.

A Freedom of Information Act request came up with this document titled “Chinese Tech Landscape Overview” from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI)

This document details how the technological landscape of China compares to that of the USA, and in many ways that they are further ahead.

What is most interesting is that a whole bunch of the obstacles to similar adoption within the USA have now been removed with the pandemic! These include “legacy systems” that include non-digital cash, private cars, non-digital medical treatment and brick and mortar stores, while increasing surveillance.  

Investigative journalist Whitney Webb covers this in detail in her great article here. A couple excerpts below:

“Last year, a U.S. government body dedicated to examining how artificial intelligence can “address the national security and defense needs of the United States” discussed in detail the “structural” changes that the American economy and society must undergo in order to ensure a technological advantage over China, according to a recent document acquired through an FOIA request. This document suggests that the U.S. follow China’s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies, particularly their use of mass surveillance. This perspective clearly clashes with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China, who have labeled the Chinese government’s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major “threat” to Americans’ “way of life.””

“In addition, many of the steps for the implementation of such a program in the U.S., as laid out in this newly available document, are currently being promoted and implemented as part of the government’s response to the current coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. This likely due to the fact that many members of this same body have considerable overlap with the taskforces and advisors currently guiding the government’s plans to “re-open the economy” and efforts to use technology to respond to the current crisis.”

Society is being re-structured, whether we like it or not.

An army of contact tracers coming to your town soon.

Read through this article. Look at the document. In a way, it’s a crystal ball for the future because this is what extremely powerful people desire the future to look like.

Webb concludes, “It is indeed striking how the coronavirus crisis has seemingly fulfilled the NSCAI’s entire wishlist and removed many of the obstacles to the mass adoption of AI technologies in the United States. Like major crises of the past, the national security state appears to be using the chaos and fear to promote and implement initiatives that would be normally rejected by Americans and, if history is any indicator, these new changes will remain long after the coronavirus crisis fades from the news cycle. It is essential that these so-called “solutions” be recognized for what they are and that we consider what type of world they will end up creating – an authoritarian technocracy. We ignore the rapid advance of these NSCAI-promoted initiatives and the phasing out of so-called “legacy systems” (and with them, many long-cherished freedoms) at our own peril.”

Total Population Control

This plan isn’t new. It’s just close to being in total effect!

For instance here is former NSA technical director turned whistle blower William Binney talking about it.

I can’t say for sure if some of these people are behind the virus or not (regarding engineering and/or intentionally releasing it). There’s still not a clear answer there. And I don’t think they control everything so things might not pan out this way.

BUT there does appear to be a great many people involved and tons of money to make it so. That means it is definitely worth paying attention to.

There are many players. One of which appears to be recent presidential hopeful, Michael Bloomberg who is covered in this deep dive article, that discusses similar outlook.

“This is the financial infrastructure that will undergird human capital markets as the automation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution dispossesses people of their economic independence. The data that will be used to run these markets will come from education, healthcare, and supportive housing settings…Many people who have started to put the pieces together are imagining a future where compulsory vaccinations are linked to digital identity with social-credit scoring or geo-fencing being implemented to restrict a person’s mobility. China is tracking people on parole on Blockchain in “smart” environments now. Such a system could be easily be modified to track individuals based on health or vaccination status. Digital martial law would be the “stick” to the “carrot” of [Internet of Things] social prescribing.”

I’ve only mentioned a little about Bloomberg and his Bloomberg Foundations, specifically as tied to former CDC director Tom Friedan. But you can see from the above picture that he’s tied into many things along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Click to view the interactive map.

TLDR version of that article is that, like Bill Gates, Bloomberg is a billionaire technocrat heavily invested in technology aimed at surveilling and controlling human populations…at the very least.

Where’s This Going?

It started in China. We saw lockdowns in China. We in the US, and probably most of the other world, didn’t possibly think that would happen to us. As things begin to open up many think we’re getting back to normal.

But parts of China are going back into lockdown under the “2^nd wave”.

You’ve heard this term, right? Fauci has been warning about it even saying it’s “inevitable.”

Therefore, yes that is what we’ll be seeing guaranteed, despite the fact that we flattened the curve and the hospitals never got overwhelmed.

Despite 66% of hospitalizations coming from people that stayed home in New York, it’ll be the fault of those damn protesters and that we opened up too early of course.

After all, some of the population is being disobedient. More fear must occur for the totalitarian, technocratic plans to come to full fruition.

Be prepared for this to be a multi-year process as well. The Great Leap Forward didn’t happen overnight and neither will this.

The trailer for the documentary Plandemic has been going viral the past few days…in addition to getting censored. All across social media you can watch people share this…and others attacking it viciously.

There are two major narratives going on right now. And both are actually quite rationally consistent depending on which set of spin of the facts you believe. So who do you believe?

Is the video being removed because its dangerous misinformation that will hurt people…or is it an example of censorship because it contains truth they don’t want you to know?

This video has been removed from Youtube several times.

But it is still available on BitChute.

And here’s the Plandemic Movie website. (Note that the full documentary is not yet available.)

I’ll get to the specifics of the video soon enough, but first a little history lesson…

Who Would Know if Medical Science is Corrupted or Not?

I would say the editors of journals in which such science is published is the best place to look.

Now if there were just one or two of these saying a problem existed, maybe you could dismiss it. But here I quote four such editors across the biggest journals, BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and the Lancet. I could have dug up more, but I feel this is sufficient.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.”
– Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of New England Journal of Medicine, 2009

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”
– Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet

“We landed in our present mess because of the innumerable mistakes in the past…They include failure of clinical scientists, their institutions and the editors of the journals publishing their science to understand how thoroughly they were being caught up by the marketers who paid them. I believe it will take a revolution to sweep away decades of self-dealing by industry.”
 – Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor, JAMA

“Critics of the drug industry have been increasing in number, respectability, and vehemence, and Peter [C. Gøtzsche, author of Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime] has surpassed them all in comparing the industry with organised crime. I hope that nobody will be put off reading this book by the boldness of his comparison, and perhaps the bluntness of the message will lead to valuable reform.”
 – Richard Smith, MD and former Editor-in-Chief, BMJ

The only people that don’t agree with these people are those that have such conflicts of interest and want to keep them that way!

If you do not believe that science can be bought…you are lying to yourself! It is abundantly clear this is possible and from what I’ve seen medicine is the place where it is worse.

Some people want to say that there are just a few bad apples in the barrel (despite the fact that every pharmaceutical company of note is guilty of the same kinds of crimes committed over and over again).

The barrel itself is not rotten. In other words the scientific method works.

BUT what if the people that direct where the barrel gets moved to are rotten?

How is Medical Science Corrupted?

Another history lesson here. We only need to cast out minds back to Big Tobacco. Everyone knows about this at least vaguely. Unfortunately, they know too few details which then don’t allow them to draw parallels to these same actions and worse being done ever since up to today.

The following quotes come from the article “Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics.”

***

“The tobacco industry’s program to engineer the science relating to the harms caused by cigarettes marked a watershed in the history of the industry. It moved aggressively into a new domain, the production of scientific knowledge, not for purposes of research and development but, rather, to undo what was now known: that cigarette smoking caused lethal disease. If science had historically been dedicated to the making of new facts, the industry campaign now sought to develop specific strategies to “unmake” a scientific fact.”

“If public relations could engineer consent among consumers, so too could it manage the science…Although medicine and science had never been sacrosanct from a range of social and commercial interests, the tobacco industry campaign crossed into new terrain to build a powerful network of interests and influence.”

“[Public relations man] Hill understood that simply denying emerging scientific facts would be a losing game. This would not only smack of self-interest but also ally the companies with ignorance in an age of technological and scientific hegemony. So he proposed seizing and controlling science rather than avoiding it.”

“Hill’s proposal offered the potential of a research program that would be controlled by the industry yet promoted as independent. This was a public relations masterstroke…offering funds directly to university-based scientists would enlist their support and dependence. Moreover, it would have the added benefit of making academic institutions “partners” with the tobacco industry in its moment of crisis.”

“The Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), a group that would be carefully shaped by [PR Firm] Hill & Knowlton to serve the industry’s collective interests, would be central to the explicit goal of controlling the scientific discourse about smoking and health.”

***

I first covered this in Medical Monopoly Musings #15 – Tobacco Playbook – Muddying the Scientific Waters and there’s more to that. I also covered it in two of my Health Sovereign podcasts here and here.

There is far more to this story too. As I wrote about just recently, the WHO did an internal analysis that looked at how Big Tobacco was able to manipulate them. This resulted in a 260 page document that shows the width and depth of tactics used to influence science, policy making, media and more.

“In one of their most significant strategies for influencing WHO’s tobacco control activities, tobacco companies developed and maintained relationships with current or former WHO staff, consultants and advisors. In some cases, tobacco companies hired or offered future employment to former WHO or UN officials in order to indirectly gain valuable contacts within these organizations that might assist in its goal of influencing WHO activities. Of greatest concern, tobacco companies have, in some cases, had their own consultants in positions at WHO, paying them to serve the goals of tobacco companies while working for WHO. Some of these cases raise serious questions about whether the integrity of WHO decision making has been compromised.” (emphasis added)

Understand that these consultants and advisors would help make policy based on “science,” would direct funds to “science,” and would put other public messaging regarding such “science.”

If it happened in tobacco, it happens elsewhere.

Tobacco Science 2.0

Based on that analysis, the WHO made recommendations for changes so such influence couldn’t be done again. How many of those actually went into place?

And even if many changes were made, do you think sneakier methods wouldn’t be developed by industry to achieve the same aims? After all mega-profits are at stake.

Think Tobacco Science 2.0 and you might begin to see what is possible in today’s modern age. In other words the “Tobacco Playbook” is constantly being updated.

For example, as revealed through court cases, we saw GMO and chemical company Monsanto ran an “intelligence fusion center,” a term used by law enforcement for operations for surveillance and to combat terrorism.

Were they fighting terrorists? Nope. The Guardian reports how Monsanto targeted journalists and non-profits that had messages criticizing Monsanto. They used methods such as SEO (search engine optimization), negative book reviews, pressuring journalists and editors, monitoring and actions on social media, engaging “pro-science” third parties, paying academics for positive reports, etc.

Monsanto got bought by Bayer, a pharmaceutical company. In consolidation they have MORE money and power to do continue such intelligence operations. (Related to today’s discussion, Bayer paid out $600 million in damages to people they infected with HIV from their blood product Factor VIII. While they released a safer version in the US, knowing they had problems with it, they sold the contaminated stuff overseas.)

Do you think they’re the only ones using these methods?

Big Tobacco eventually succumbed to the real science as opposed to their tobacco science. But they were hugely successfully (meaning profitable) in delaying what happened. As other industries saw this occur they surely thought: How could we make sure that doesn’t happen to us?

What if you influenced not just some scientists…but the head scientists? From the top down you exert a tremendous amount of control in the direction of where science goes, what gets published, what does not, or even what gets retracted.

My Wrestling with Varmus the Varmint

I read Marcia Angell’s book, The Truth About the Drug Companies back in December. She’s one of the editors quoted above that went on to write a scathing book about the industry as several of them did.

One thing stood out more than anything there, and that was the activities of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) director, Harold Varmus. It was at this point that I decided I’d be naming specific people in my Medical Monopoly Musings, starting in #28 The NIH is Compromised.

I wrestled with this decision because talking about powerful people could paint me as a target. Was I really so sure of their actions to do such a thing? I certainly didn’t want to get wrapped up in a libel suit! Still I decided I would pursue the truth, so I moved forward in naming names, starting with this man. Here’s my investigation:

***

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the main agency of the United States government responsible for public health and medical research. Our taxpayer dollars make up the majority of funding for research done at NIH.

In addition to its own research, grants from the NIH then go out to medical institutions and schools supposedly based on scientific merit.

As a publicly funded institution the science is supposed to be in the public interest. Sometimes it is. Other times…well, you be the judge. Marcia Angell, introduced in my previous post, wrote this:

“A 2003 piece of investigative reporting by David Willman in the Los Angeles Times called that picture into serious question. Willman found that senior NIH scientists (who are among the highest paid employees in the government) routinely supplement their income by accepting large consulting fees and stock options from drug companies that have dealings with the institutes. At one time, most of these kinds of connections would have been prohibited, but in 1995, the then director of the institutes, Harold Varmus, with a stroke of the pen, lifted the restrictions. After that, the NIH placed no limits on the amount of money its scientists could earn from outside work or the time they could devote to it…Some NIH scientists made hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees. The deputy director of the Laboratory of Immunology, for instance, whose salary was $179,000 in 2003, was reported to have collected more than $1.4 million in consulting fees over eleven years and received stock options valued at $865,000.”

In the next post I’ll dive deeper into Harold Varmus, the man responsible for this and a prime example of the revolving door in action, specifically within the scientific realm.

To boil it down, a guy with massive conflicts of interests makes it so that conflicts of interest are no longer restricted.

Does anyone else see a problem here?

Willman wrote, “Dual roles — federal research leader and drug company consultant — are increasingly common at the NIH, an agency once known for independent scientific inquiry on behalf of a single client: the public.”

Furthermore, “Increasingly, outside payments to NIH scientists are being hidden from public view. Relying in part on a 1998 legal opinion, NIH officials now allow more than 94% of the agency’s top-paid employees to keep their consulting income confidential. As a result, the NIH is one of the most secretive agencies in the federal government when it comes to financial disclosures…Many of them also routinely sign confidentiality agreements with their corporate employers, putting their outside work under tight wraps.”

Not only do they have conflicts of interest, but they keep them hidden. Nothing to see here folks! Keep on believing that science is objective.

You know what? Yes, I am anti-science…when that science is conducted in this way.

***

And then in the following post, #29 Varmus the Varmint (Scientific Revolving Door!)…

***

Last post shared how the NIH, our biggest scientific body, was effectively bought by Big Pharma. This was exposed by investigative report David Willman of the LA Times in 2003.

Willman wrote, “In November 1995, then-NIH Director Harold E. Varmus wrote to all institute and center directors, rescinding “immediately” a policy that had barred them from accepting consulting fees and payments of stock from companies….Varmus’ memo — which until now has not been made public — scuttled other restraints affecting all employees, including a $25,000 annual limit on outside income, a prohibition on accepting company stock as payment and a limit of 500 hours a year on outside activities.”

Eight years between the memo and the exposure of it. The industry made some significant strides during that time according to these rules.

As you might imagine, Willman’s exposé caused a stir. A follow-up piece came out March 13th, 2004. “Appearing before the NIH’s blue-ribbon panel on conflict of interest, Varmus also said the agency should discourage its scientists from accepting large amounts of money from companies or spending too much time on nongovernment work.” Yet the panel didn’t press Varmus very hard on why he changed the rules.

Did he really change his mind, or was he simply covering up his mis-deeds? Let’s dig a bit deeper into Varmus to get a better picture…

• 1989 – Varmus shared a Nobel Prize for genetic cancer research.
• 1993 to 1999 – Director of the National Institutes of Health
• 2000 to 2010 – President and CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
• 2008 to 2010 – Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
• 2010 to 2015 – Director of the National Cancer Institute
• 2015 to Current – Professor of Medicine at Lewis Thomas University and Senior Associate at New York Genome Center
• Current – Member of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, Global Health Advisory Board at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several other boards.

Just looking at that the average person may see a distinguished and successful scientist…but if you understand that game, instead you might be worried.

Of course, in addition, Varmus has been an advisor to pharmaceutical companies Merck, Chiron Corporation, Gilead, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) had a big problem with Varmus being appointed to director of the National Cancer Institute. This was because of his clear conflicts of interest, as well as his statement “You can’t do experiments to see what causes cancer – it’s not an accessible problem, and not the sort of thing scientists can afford to do.”

You can’t do experiments to see what causes cancer? Is this a statement that our top scientist in charge of cancer should be making?

Here’s his opinion on what cancer is all about. “Tobacco, UV rays, viruses, heredity, and age are the main causes of cancer.”

That’s a great opinion…if you want to keep the status quo of many, many people getting cancer! Notice how environmental pollutants have nothing to do with it.

Samuel Epstein, Chairman of CPC, wrote, “The ignorance of Varmus to cancer prevention is reinforced by his unrecognized personal conflicts of interest…Varmus also gave senior NCI staff free license to consult with the cancer drug industry, a flagrant institutional conflict of interest. In this connection, the 2008 edition of Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report listed Varmus with a compensation package of about $2.7 million. According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, this is the highest compensation of directors in over 500 major non-profit organizations ever monitored.”

Cancer drugs are a big industry…an industry that wants to keep it that way. God forbid we help people without lining the pockets of Big Pharma even more. Varmus the Varmint has done very well for himself and those he works for…which is not the public.

THIS is how the scientific research game is played in the real world.

*****

Look, until I came across this story in Angell’s book I had never heard of this man. I’m willing to bet, unless you read my posts earlier, you haven’t until now either.

But based on that I started really digging into him, finding that almost no one had really covered him. This is really where I started to put pieces together in the bigger picture of how science can be rigged.

I bring him up because the ONLY other person I’ve seen talk about him is…Dr. Judy Mikovits, the woman featured in the Plandemic video.

Plague of Corruption

Dr. Judy Mikovits only came on my radar a few months back. I ordered and read her new book, Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science.

I’ll tell you what. This current pandemic has led to my getting educated around HIV and AIDS a lot! (For example, similar controversies regarding testing.) But I’m no virologist. I do not have the expertise to judge the truth of Mikovits claims, nor her detractors, on retroviruses.

The main message is contained within this simplified cartoon. Using mouse cells to produce vaccines (or human cells) can cause the introduction of retroviruses into us.

Again, that is beyond my pay grade. But plenty of other stuff she talks about does fit into what I have researched.

She asks a really good, yet simple question about vaccines. “If vaccines are as safe as sugar water, why do the pharmaceutical companies need to have complete financial immunity and be protected by a battalion of lawyers from the US Department of Justice?”

(By the way all SARS-CoV2 vaccines and drugs are already exempt from liability in the US.)

With my recent focus on the WHO I want to include this quote, mentioned in her book, from the Simpsonwood conference, Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information, June 7-8, 2000 which looked at the scientific data for a study showing possible causal link of thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines and autism.

John Clements, worked for the WHO in the Expanded Program on Immunization. Near the conclusion of the meeting he states:

”I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was no enough discussion really early on about which way the boat  should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted and we have all reached this point now where we are leg hanging, even though I hear the majority of the consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes. I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic…And what we have here is people who have, for every best reason in the world, pursued a direction of research. But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say. My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe. So I leave you with the challenge that I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations. My message would be that any other study, and I like the study that has just been described here very much. I think it makes a lot of sense, but it has to be thought through. What are the potential outcomes and how will you handle it? How will it be presented to a public and a media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they have in store for them?” (emphasis added)

Mikovits replies to this with, “Are you reading this summation the same way I am? That maybe this is a study that shouldn’t have been done? In my entire life I’ve never known a scientist to argue against obtaining knowledge. And it isn’t the harm to children he’s worried about, but how this information can be managed. Honestly, it seems they’ve done a pretty good job of managing information in the nearly two decades since that meeting was held.”

By the way, she states she is not against vaccines…just bad science or lack of it around vaccines.

The best of tobacco science 2.0 is to only conduct science where the outcome is already known. And if science comes out contrary to what industry wants it has to be handled appropriately. That is what Mikovits is saying happened to her.

It sounds unbelievable at first, but that’s only if you do not understand the game being played and the stakes involved.

“Science” is directed to predetermined outcomes by those that have the power to direct it. You could think of it as one of the ultimate forms of marketing, to achieve scientific consensus.

What Mikovits has to say about Varmus

“There are three people I place in what Frank Ruscetti [her research partner] calls the “Unholy Trinity of Science,” and they are Harold Varmus, Francis Collins, and Tony Fauci. Whenever you ask yourself why the truth hasn’t been told in a critical area of public health, you’ll probably find the fingerprints of these men at the crime scene.”

Everyone knows who Fauci is now.

Francis Collins is someone else who has been director of NIH, well known for his involvement in the Human Genome Project. I do not know much about him beyond this so that’s a topic for another time.

As mentioned, after all my research into Varmus, this was the only other person I’d heard talking about him. It’s a brief mention midway through the book. But then bigger details come later which line up with my own research into this man.

***

“Let’s talk about downward mobility and see if this makes any sense.

Depending on experience (and probably your political backing), the director of the National Institutes of Health will make somewhere up to $230,000 a year.

“In 2016, it was reported that the president and CEO of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dr. Craig Thompson, made $2,944,000, or about ten times what one would make as director of the National Institutes of Health. [We saw above Varmus actually made about $2.7 million]

“Now, the latest information on a salary for the director of the National Cancer Institute (a division of the National Institutes of Health) is up to a little more than a $151,000.

“Okay, so let’s get this chain of events straight.

“You’re Harold Varmus and you’ve got both a Nobel Prize and a Lasker Award.

“You serve as director of the National Institutes of Health for eight years.

“After serving as director of the National Institutes of Health, you pick up a sweet gig at a New York Cancer clinic where you make a couple million dollars per year.

“Then suddenly you decided you want to head up a division of the National Institutes of Health (National Cancer Institute), where at most you’ll make a little over a hundred and fifty thousand a year, about five percent of what you’d made the previous year.

“I just don’t buy it.

“Harold Varmus was brought in to get Frank Ruscetti under control.

“When Harold Varmus took over at the National Cancer Institute, he directed a team led by John Coffin to discredit Frank Ruscetti.”

***

I had looked at the timeline of where Varmus worked before, seeing the scientific revolving door in action. But here one of those moves specifically was addressed in why.

Why did Varmus rotate from a top private industry position back into a lower government position then he’d previously had?

A director of scientists can work to control the scientific narrative. Tobacco science 2.0 at its best.

Motive and Follow the Money

If you’re looking into crimes, there are two things you want to look at. Motive is why a person or group of people would engage in such things. In many cases this happens to be money, in which case you want to see where the money comes from and goes.

The narrative against Mikovits is that she did flawed science but wanted to win awards for it.

Lots of science is wrong. Plenty of papers get retracted. But do those scientists tends to get fired and arrested for it?

Something that lends credence to her story is how she was arrested but never charged for anything. If they had all the proof, why not? “And in the years since my false arrest and imprisonment, why have I been unable to have a single day in court for a judge and jury to hear my claims, even though I have never given up the effort to receive process?”

They claim she’s trying to make money from her book (personally, as a seller of books I know that unless you’re at the very top, like Stephen King, this is NOT a good way to make lots of money).

Meanwhile the money involved in the medical complex is VAST. Financial conflicts of interest are rampant, so wouldn’t we expect at least some top scientists to be included in that, especially when, like we see with Varmus, he wrote the rules to make it so at the NIH?!?

Ultimately, it is up to you to make your own decision. But I figured it was worth writing this article to give my view.

(Just because I believe Mikovits’ main story doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with her on every point and opinion.)

Varmus’ Connection to…who else…the Gates Foundation

In case you missed it, where is Varmus today? He’s on the Global Health Advisory Board at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

As far back as 2003 we see a $200 million grant on “Grand Challenges” in global health from the Gates Foundation. Varmus chaired the scientific board. Also on that board were Anthony Fauci and Julie Gerberding.

But of course all roads leads back to Gates. He’s self-appointed world director of health. And on that note, a funny look at this…

Let’s say we have a spectrum of good vs. evil.

<—Evil ———————-Good—->

Obviously, life is much messier than that but we’re just looking for a simpler model of the world right now.

(I know some people think we live in a meaningless universe where good and evil don’t exist. But I don’t find that useful as it doesn’t help us navigate this world. Besides even people that state such beliefs in meaninglessness don’t actually live by them.)

Regardless of metaphysical beliefs or lack of them, I think we can all agree that people can engage in things that are either good or bad. Of course, this is a judgement call. And with that there are lots of shades of grey, time scales, differing values and all kinds of things to think about. But once again we’re keeping it simple. Thus:

• Hurting babies = evil
• Protecting babies = good

Do you agree with that? Good! We’ll start just there.

With this spectrum we can then think about a particular person. Let’s take Bill Gates.

I don’t want to talk about Bill Gates. But I have to talk about Bill Gates. With what is going on in the world he is one of the most important people alive. Thus, it seems worth investigating his motives and actions.

Four Possible Bill Gates

On this spectrum Gates could exist in different spots according to different theories about who he actually is at heart. Good and evil is too simple, but we can extend that a bit further using four buckets for simplification purposes.

Saintly Philanthropist – On the far right we see someone that is a huge benefactor for the world, protecting millions of babies, potentially the whole planet. He is doing his best to help humanity thrive and accomplishing great things.

Normal Person with Virtues & Flaws – On the middle right we’d see obvious care for babies as any normal human would. Striving to protect them through the use of resources, time, and effort would then fit here too. But as all humans are flawed, there is potential for just being wrong about ways of accomplishing that here. In other words, you could be trying to help someone and end up hurting them.

Ruthless Power Hungry Sociopath – On the middle left we’d see not caring about hurting babies. It could simply be a by-product or collateral damage, from actions aimed at things such as gaining money, power and control of the world. Maybe you wouldn’t directly harm a baby…but if other people do so, or if it’s distant, that is okay. Means to an end.

Satanist/Pedophile/Eugenicist – Far on the left side we’d see hurting and killing babies, even getting sadistic pleasure out of it. Enjoyment from being evil. (Note, that I lumped these three things together for simplicity’s sake when they could certainly be separate. There’s also different types of Satanists, some who do seem to be truly evil, while others enjoy the religion mockingly when they’re really atheist. To the latter I apologize for lumping you in with the others. Again, doing this all for simplification purposes.)

Where do I think that Bill Gates lies? I’m not sure except to say that, in my opinion, it is not the far right. He’s not a saint. I’ve seen enough evidence to say that at the very least he’s on the middle right, and some evidence to suggest it’s worse than that.

But I also cannot justifiably jump both feet into any of these buckets as I’ve seen others do. I don’t know enough…yet. Buckle up this is the first in a series about Bill Gates so we can explore this issue in depth! If you thought my WHO reporting was great, that was just the appetizer.

Why He’s Not a Saint in My Book

Gates has publicly said he wants to vaccinate every single person. His recent GatesNotes said, “The goal is to pick the one or two best vaccine constructs and vaccinate the entire world.”

I do not want that. Once again, I am totally fine with people getting the vaccine if they choose. I hope this new vaccine does work and is extremely low in side effects. But I’m very worried it won’t be.

I say, to each their own. But that’s how I want it to be. I want the CHOICE to engage in this rushed, likely a brand new never-before-used RNA vaccine which “essentially turns your body into its own vaccine manufacturing unit.”

It certainly seems that Gates would deny me that choice. After all I am part of “the entire world.” In addition, he is heavily funding organizations that say that “vaccine hesitancy” is one of the top global threats.

Therefore…that makes him my enemy, at least a little bit not good in my book. That knocks him out of the saint category in my mind.

Still, it is possible he believes in vaccines so completely that he wants to do this for the good of everyone. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt at this point that he is just blinded in the matter. Many people definitely are!

Scott Adams A Priori Dismissal of Gates as Evil

Michael, whose been following my series here, sent me this video.

Let me start off by saying that I’m a fan of Scott Adams. I always liked Dilbert. I’ve read one of Adam’s books, listened to interviews with him, etc. I think he has some smart and great ideas. But this is not one of them…

His is an interesting line of reasoning. It basically goes like this. Because Santa Claus, Jonah in the whale, professional wrestling, and Big Foot are all fake, therefore Bill Gates can’t be evil.

At least he honestly lays it out, whereas many people think the same way but with it just being amorphous thoughts they’ve never articulated. I commend him for even addressing the issue.

I do get the impulse to deny the possibility of Gates being anything besides good. Because of the consensus worldview it couldn’t possibly make sense. It really only does so if you put together some of the other puzzle pieces first. (That conspiracies have been found to be true over and over again, that Big Pharma operates as organized crime, that media is controlled to at least some degree, etc.)

But it is intellectually dishonest. Adams is telling you that he made up his mind before looking at any data!

Then when he looks at the data oh-so-briefly, he finds a few things that support his ideas, which then lets him think case closed. If you make up your mind first, all you’re going to do is confirm your bias. You’ll find the things that support you and dismiss anything that doesn’t.

Let me put it this way.

Cast your mind back twenty years ago. Someone tells you that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist. By Adam’s line of reasoning, doesn’t it make sense to dismiss this outright? Don’t forget that Bill not only had popular shows and commercials but supported charities and the community. (Can’t think about that without remembering Dave Chapelle’s amazing callback joke, “he rapes but he saves.”)

No one would possibly believe that the kid show host and philanthropist Jimmy Savile was Britain’s most prolific pedophile! Any accusations could be summarily dismissed because BIGFOOT! In fact, allegations were brought up many times…and they all were dismissed until after his death.

There’s no way the Catholic priest could be touching kids. He’s a man of god!

So I think Adams a priori argument is extremely hollow.

In short, DO NOT MAKE UP YOUR MIND FIRST.

He then gives a few things to back up his opinion. This part is laughable though because of Adams demonstration of lack of knowledge…but also of being guilty of the same things he states are the problem!

Mind Reading

He reads some of what RFK Jr. said, that “Gates believes good health comes out of a syringe.”

But then Adam goes on to do mind reading that Gates doesn’t believe that.

We see from Gates Notes again, “Short of a miracle treatment, which we can’t count on, the only way to return the world to where it was before COVID-19 showed up is a highly effective vaccine that prevents the disease.” (emphasis added)

That looks to me to be saying that a vaccine is necessary for health. Am I reading that wrong?

In his popular Ted Talk, Gates said, “my full-time work at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds” which gives us a clue.

We can look at where the Gates Foundation spends its money (2018 Annual Report). What is most important for health? Adams makes a big deal about sanitation because of the toilets covered in the Netflix special (see below). How much is spent here as compared to nutrition or vaccines? If we use money spent as a proxy for importance to health, we can see what Gates thinks!

Guilt by Association

Adams brings up the case of Bill Gates relations to Jeffrey Epstein, who as you famously know #didnotkillhimself.

He does make some valid points. I do see far too much of this in the “conspiracy” world. Famous people meet lots of famous people. There are connections between these people and the many organizations they run. So just because two people take a picture together doesn’t mean they’re in cahoots.

As an example, Adams mentions how he had a serial pedophile in his home, but he didn’t know it at the time!

The only problem with that argument is that Gates STARTED his relationship with Epstein AFTER his arrest for soliciting underage girls. Other people at the Foundation thought this was a bad idea, especially given the focus of the Foundation on women empowerment!

Associations are certainly not definitive proof. But neither should they be dismissed outright. They should be looked into. In RICO cases connections are in fact a large part of how criminal organizations are brought down.

More on the Gates and Epstein connections in a later article. I’ve looked at it a little bit thus far and I honestly don’t know if there’s anything here. But there might be.

Misquotes or Out of Context

Quotes are another thing that can easily be misleading. One big thing is to just outright misquote someone. Another is to edit the quote without context to make it look bad. The latter bit happens a lot!

Back to the Ted Talk, Bill says, “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10% or 15%. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3.”

Many see this as PROOF that Gates wants to kill people with vaccines. But it is not. He’s not talking about people so much as population growth. And it is well-established that as people become healthier and better off economically birth rates go down.

He says that something in the equation must go to zero in order for CO2 to go to zero. One of his factors is population.

Is this him being very open about his eugenicist plans? You be the judge, but personally I find this to be extremely weak evidence.

One Sided Arguments

Adams mentions being sent a video online that talks about Gates evil plans. And he rightly says that viewing something one-sided is easy to convince you of such. I agree with that too. We shouldn’t view one thing and automatically believe it. We should seek out both sides.

Yet, then he goes on to point out a Netflix special, Inside Bill’s Brain: Decoding Bill Gates which came out in September 2019.

Since Adam has previously made up his mind that Gates must be good this series is automatically assumed to be true and accurate while the Youtube video was inaccurate. (As if a one-sided documentary or propaganda isn’t possible on Netflix.)

I watched all three episodes so to clearly see this side of the argument. It is 98% positive towards Bill. It paints him as a very smart individual (and I am not doubting that at all). It paints him as a man aiming to do great things in the world. It even paints him as a victim at times because of things such as the USA/China trade war.

That 2% other side is just enough to make many people think it’s a balanced look at Gates. The monopoly anti-trust case against Microsoft is briefly mentioned with Gates lessons learned from his younger naïve self.

Above all, there was one thing that really stood out to me in these videos.

Bill Gates is a Technocrat
Do you believe in Technocracy?

In the final episode, one criticism that is brought up is that Gates is “a technophile that thinks that technology will save everything.”

Bill responds like this, “Yeah, I’m basically guilty of that. Any problem I will look at how technical innovation can help solve that problem. It’s the one thing I know and the one thing I’m good at. And so, you know, that’s my hammer. Uh…And so lots of problems look like nails because I’ve got a hammer.”

Technocracy is defined as an ideological system of governance in which decision-makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge. Bill Gates, being at one time the richest man on the planet, has clearly appointed himself a leader in science, education and medicine. With his views on technology and the power he wields that makes him a technocrat.

Regarding COVID19, in his Gates Notes he wrote this:

“I see global innovation as the key to limiting the damage. This includes innovations in testing, treatments, vaccines, and policies to limit the spread while minimizing the damage to economies and well-being…It can also sound like we have all the scientific advances needed to re-open the economy, but in fact we do not.”

In other words, as a human that may possibly be infected with SARS-CoV2, Gates sees me as a nail and he has his hammer, a vaccine.

I feel like these quotes from Gates himself sums it up. Technology will save us all. Always new technology. Never mind, that technology has created almost all the problems we’re facing. Never mind that we often find technology has long-term complications that we don’t realize until much later on.

Gates believes we need new technology in vaccines. We need to give everyone a digital ID in order to solve these problems. We need to genetically engineer more food, including growing meat in a lab. 5G is needed to control and coordinate all these things. These are things Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation invests in.

Technology is the route to our future. The only thing that can save us. That is what Gates clearly believes.

Do you?

I personally want to stay human and not become part machine. This is why I can’t see him as a saint because we have different life philosophies.

I’m obviously not a luddite and saying that all technology is bad…but some of it definitely has issues! I think we as a human species would be better off slowing down a bit, cleaning up some of the messes we’ve created with technology using current technology, instead of always plowing forward.

In coming articles I’ll be exploring as best as I can the facts surrounding Bill Gates for what bucket he best seems to sit in. Based on what I’ve learned so far, I have my leanings but will wait until I learn much more before taking a stand.

We continued to show that the World Health Organization (WHO) is a corrupted organization. To recap, in part one we saw the following:

• How “Control” of the WHO is less useful to think about than “Influence”
• How corruption would build in a large organization like the WHO, even if most of the people involved were good
• The censorship of a documentary (TrustWHO) that critically looked at the WHO
• How Big Tobacco was able to influence and infiltrate the WHO in order to continue to rake in profits. Long after this occurred, the WHO put together a committee to analyze how it happened. The report they produced is eye-opening because it’s a playbook of tactics…one that other industries are using against the WHO today
• A Wikileaks document dump showing the WHO took policy notes from Big Pharma
• How the WHO helped to fuel the opioid epidemic making policy straight from what Purdue Pharma wanted including bad science and over-prescribing
• A former Director General of the WHO, Halfdan Mahler stating Big Pharma “is taking over WHO” back in 1988
• Other whistleblowers, like Dr. Germán Velásquez, WHO Director of the Secretariat, being attacked by Pharma and locked out of important meetings
• The Swine Flu and how the WHO changed how the grading of pandemic levels were altered in order for Big Pharma to sell more drugs to countries
• Several examples of rampant conflicts of interest in employees and policy makers
• The WHO’s cover-up of Chernobyl and Fukishima deaths, denying radiation causes anything besides cancer

That was part one. Now, let us continue…

WHO Spends More on Travel then AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

The Associated Press obtained internal documents showing that the WHO spent $200 million a year on travel expenses. This is more than what they spend on several major diseases combined, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

This came out at a time when the WHO was pleading for more funding because it was going broke!

Remember Dr. Bruce Aylward, the man who pretended not to hear the question about Taiwan’s coronavirus response and then hung up the phone? Turns out he “racked up nearly $400,000 in travel expenses during the Ebola crisis, sometimes flying by helicopter to visit clinics instead of traveling by jeep over muddy roads, according to internal trip reports he filed.”

Speaking about then Director-General Margaret Chan, “Three sources who asked not to be identified for fear of losing their jobs told the AP that Chan often flew in first class.” She spent more than $370,000 that year. Always good to strike fear into your employees for telling the truth!

Travel is certainly necessary, but are these people using funds that ought to be better spent as their own slush fund?

Vaccines are Safe and Effective…but We Don’t Know How Many People They Kill

The party line is always that vaccines are safe and effective.  Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at will tell you exactly that. In this video you can hear her talk about how “vaccines are very safe.”

Yet, then at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, in Geneva, December 2-3, 2019, she said,

“I cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to miscommunication and the misapprehensions. Because we are not able to give very good clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets brought up in the media. One should be able to give a factual account of what has happened and what the cause of deaths are. But in most cases, there is obfuscation and therefore there is less trust in the system.”

Here’s a deeper dive including commentary that covers the many different people at the WHO summit talking about various areas in which they actually don’t have good safety science.

The Goal is Universal Vaccination

The Immunization Agenda 2030 envisions “A world where everyone, everywhere, at every age, fully benefits from vaccines for good health and well-being.”

“Immunization is the foundation of the primary health care system and an indisputable human right. It’s also one of the best health investments money can buy.”

Here’s the truth. Most anti-vaxxers aren’t really anti-vaccine. They simply want the choice to be able to opt-in or out for themselves or their children. Many are ex-vaxxers because someone in their families were injured severely. They want proper education about risks and benefits (aka informed consent) so people can make a good choice about this pharmaceutical intervention. The problem is that choice is being eroded.

The WHO and related organizations are very clear that “vaccine misinformation” is their enemy.

“Uptake of vaccination depends on [limiting] the spread of misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines [to] sustain trust in vaccines…and to build resilience against misinformation. The harm being caused by anti-vaccine messaging, especially on social media, should be addressed by understanding the context and reasons for lack of trust and by building and keeping trust, especially in the face of fear and distrust in traditional establishments. Strategic investments to increase trust and confidence in vaccines, in particular through strong community engagement, would increase community support for vaccines and ensure that vaccination is viewed as a social norm.”

Contrary to what they say, it is not so much the spread of misinformation, but of real information. People are starting to pick up on this as which is why trust in vaccines is going down. And this is why censorship is increasing.

They even are going so far to say that when vaccines cause injuries they aren’t really from the vaccine! Instead it’s all in people’s heads, aka “immunization stress-related responses”. How many times have doctors used this excuse when they simply don’t know what is going on? (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, EMF hypersensitivity, etc.)

I get it. I agree that misinformation would be best not to be shared.

But you know what is labeled misinformation? Any information and studies that show that there are risks to vaccines. That means they’re not really clamping down on misinformation but instead are spreading propaganda.

Informed Consent…By Default

The WHO also has a document called, “Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old” which is an interesting read. 

Early on they state, “For consent to be valid, it must be informed, understood and voluntary, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.” Yes, I think everyone agrees with this.

But then, one of the three common approaches listed on the next page is implied consent. “An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent.”

In this day and age after the #metoo movement, guys are scared to make a move on women because they don’t have implicit and verbal consent. Yet, a medical procedure can be done with less consent then going in for a kiss?

Doesn’t make much sense to me. Could a pedophile send out information about themselves to parents, such as an arrest record on a postcard, then get away with groping a child saying they parent had implied consent by not keeping them away? Don’t think so!

Charles Weijer, a bioethicist at Western University in Canada, says that implied consent is “no substitute for informed consent. Indeed, implied consent is no consent at all. We have no assurance that parents in fact received information about [vaccination studies] let alone that they understood it.” https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-02/b-wmv022520.php

While this document is focused on adolescents, similar ideas are applied elsewhere. Understand, adult coronavirus vaccination mandates are coming…

“Whether consent is needed for mandatory vaccination depends on the legal nature of the regulations. When mandatory vaccination is established in relevant provisions in law, consent may not be required.”

Most of my readers are in the US so you might want to know about ‘Jacobson v. Massachusetts.’ This Supreme Court case upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. “The Court’s decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.”

I do expect there will be new laws passed or changed to make this easier, as was done in Denmark. The vaccine people are quite clear that they want mandatory vaccines for every person. They might not be able to actually force it on you. Maybe it’s fines or imprisonment if you opt out. Maybe it’s that they make it so that you can’t participate in something if you don’t get it. We saw this with children not being allowed to go to school in several states. What appears to be the plan is that you will not be allowed to travel without vaccination. So yes, you can opt out, but then you’ll lose these privileges.

Takeshi Kasai, the WHO’s regional director for the Western Pacific, “At least until a vaccine, or a very effective treatment, is found, this process will need to become our new normal.” We’re locked down until the vaccine is here.

Understand, that is where this is going.

WHO’s Breach of Ethics with Malaria Vaccine

All that about informed consent was to help you to understand a study going on right now.

Mosquirix, also known as the RTS,S vaccine, is produced by GlaxoSmithKline. (To give some background, GSK has paid $4.4 billion in fines in the US since 2000 for false marketing and claims, safety violations, bribery and more. This includes a $3 billion lawsuit where they withheld critical safety data from the FDA.)

GSK also gave $7.365 million to the WHO in 2017, and $24 million in in-kind contributions. (That’s a good way to get tax breaks as you’ll get the fair market value for vaccines and drugs donated.)

A large scale study, led by the WHO, of Mosquirix’s effects is being conducted in Malawi, Ghana and Kenya. This study will involve 720,000 children of which implied consent is given.

Congratulations, you have been selected to be a part of a medical experiment…and we won’t even let you know about it. Your consent is implied because we sent some pamphlets out even though they didn’t disclose all the information about a doubled-death rate in girls in the earlier trial.

This violates the Nuremberg Code…you know what was put in place to stop medical experiments such as the Nazi’s conducted.

Why is this worrisome? A BMJ article sums it up well:

• Phase III trials of the RTS,S malaria vaccine identified three safety concerns: higher risks of meningitis, cerebral malaria, and doubled female mortality (emphasis added)
• Owing to the urgency of improving malaria control, the World Health Organization intends to decide on extending the vaccine to other African countries after only 24 months using the prevention of “severe malaria” as a surrogate marker for overall mortality
• Severe malaria is not a good marker for all cause mortality; it is not even a good marker for malaria mortality, as data indicate that case fatality from severe malaria might be higher in the malaria vaccine group
• An early decision after 24 months might be biased in favour of the vaccine, which was more efficacious in the first year of follow-up in the phase III trials; the relative risks of both cerebral malaria and female mortality increased after the booster dose at 20 months
• We recommend that the pilot studies use “overall mortality” to assess vaccine performance and that study populations are followed for the full 4-5 years of the study before a decision on rollout is made

Meanwhile, this study specifically violates the Malawi constitution which states, “No person shall be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without his or her consent.”

Right now, there’s a petition on Change.org that’s just under 6,000 signatures away from 35,000 needed to try to change this.

More details about this can be found in this article.

There are so many issues around the WHO’s use of vaccines. Just to give a taste of some others, the Open Letter from International Organisations to the WHO on the Issue of Vaccine Safety states:

“In your previous meeting you advocated for less independent testing, considered ‘redundant’, in order to speed up the supply of products. The recent administration of 250,000 defective vaccines in China, the tragedy of the oral polio campaign in India with over 450,000 cases of paralysis and death, the damage caused by the Dengue vaccine in the Philippines reports from all over the world of chronic pain and paralysis after administration of the HPV vaccine show that vaccine safety and efficacy are being tragically disregarded in this drive for fast-tracking approval and easy certification.”

The COVID19 Pandemic

Let’s turn gears to look at some other controversial parts of the handling of the COVID19 pandemic.

Separating Families for Quarantining

“Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
– Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of WHO Health Emergencies Programme

I don’t know anyone who would agree that that’s a good idea! Do you?

It’s not hard for anyone to imagine this becoming even more totalitarian. If all the state has to do is show you that you’ve “tested positive” and you disappear.

Believe the WHO…or Believe the WHO?

More than 50% of our planet is in some form of lockdown. There’s the ever popular social distancing. There are travel restrictions and curfews. Contact tracing is the new hot technological term. How well do these work?

Turns out the WHO wrote a report in October 2019 that looked specifically at the scientific evidence for them.

The WHO follows the best science, right? (The best science money can buy!) So it was interesting to find this their own scientists said what we’re doing isn’t the way to go. All those mentioned above had little to no scientific evidence.

Notice what is “not recommended in any circumstances” and “extraordinary measures.”

“Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.”

And yet here we are quarantining even non-exposed people!

Dr. Mike Ryan, who wants to separate families as deemed necessary, has stated, “There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.”

Yet, regarding masks, this same report states, “Recommended for symptomatic individuals, and conditionally recommended for public protection. Given the costs and the uncertain effectiveness, face masks are conditionally recommended only in severe influenza epidemics or pandemics for the protection of the general population, but are recommended for symptomatic individuals at all times.”

If they can’t even get masks right (the CDC similarly flip-flopped on the matter), do you really trust them with bigger health ideas?

WHO Urges Sweden to Revise Course

“The World Health Organization (WHO) is skeptical of Sweden’s approach. Noting a fresh surge in the country’s infections, the WHO told CNN Wednesday that it’s “imperative” that Sweden “increase measures to control spread of the virus, prepare and increase capacity of the health system to cope, ensure physical distancing and communicate the why and how of all measures to the population,” reports CNN.

Earlier on during the pandemic I was rooting for Sweden to not cave into the political and media pressure. I felt it was important that they stick to their guns so that we had a “control group” compared to all the countries who locked down. So far, so good!

Time will still tell, but it seems that this is spun in each direction depending on which set of facts you look at.

Unfortunately, even if this is the case, it will be explained away as an aberration because that is how you control the narrative.  

Antibodies = No Immunity

In their April 24^th update, the WHO said, “There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.”

No evidence is a strong phrase, not to mention one that flies in the face with how immunity tends to work.

Yes, there certainly are some cases of people being infected with SARS-CoV-2 more than once. But does that make for “no evidence”?

This caused another uproar. And the WHO walked back their statements the next day, tweeting:

Earlier today we tweeted about a new WHO scientific brief on "immunity passports". The thread caused some concern & we would like to clarify:

We expect that most people who are infected with #COVID19 will develop an antibody response that will provide some level of protection. pic.twitter.com/AmxvQQLTjM

— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) April 25, 2020

This whole concept is more interesting because antibodies are how most vaccines work. This gives rise to the idea, with fast-mutating coronavirus strains, that it would need to be an annual shot like the not-very-effective influenza vaccine.

Funding and Defunding the WHO

Personally, I think Trumps calls to defund the WHO are a good move. On April 14^th he said, “Today I am instructing my administration to halt funding of the WHO while a review is conducted to assess the WHO’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”

The interesting thing about this is that if it comes to pass, it makes the Gates Foundation the biggest funder of the WHO, so we’ll turn there next.

But first look at just how much Big Pharma contributes. This is from the 2017 report.

• Bayer $1,158,060
• Bristol-Myers Squib $215,730
• GlaxoSmithKline $7,365,666
• Gilead Sciences $3,124,450
• Hoffmann-La Roche $6,628,090
• Merck $1,912,226
• Novartis $500,000
• Sanofi Pasteur $9,411,491
• Sanofi-Aventis $2,634,963

I listed just some of the more recognizable pharmaceutical companies’ names. This does not include the many organizations these companies contribute to that then contribute to the WHO such as CDC Foundation ($3.2 million), Rockefeller Foundation ($748,945), and many others.

And overall, it’s not that much compared to the total $2.1 billion privately donated that year (compared to $1 billion from member states, that is governments).

But understand that these donations are devoted to specific projects as picked by the donors.

Can you say conflicts of interest? You can read more about how these financial contributions violate the WHO’s own guidelines in this article.

WHO Largely Funded by Gates Foundation

Looking at the same 2017 report, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave $324,654,317 to the WHO.

This is in addition to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, which the Gates Foundation is heavily funding, which gave $133,365,051. Or The Global Fund which gave $16,170,654, which the Gates Foundation has pledged $650 million from 2017-2019.

I start with this sharp criticism from a WHO employee of the Gates Foundation’s influence. Arati Kochi was the chief of the malaria program at the WHO. He complained to then director-general Chan that the money could have “far-reaching, largely unintended consequences.”

In 2008, New York Times reported:

---

Many of the world’s leading malaria scientists are now “locked up in a ‘cartel’ with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group,” Kochi wrote. Because “each has a vested interest to safeguard the work of the others,” he wrote, getting independent reviews of research proposals “is becoming increasingly difficult.”

Also, he argued, the foundation’s determination to have its favored research used to guide the health organization’s recommendations “could have implicitly dangerous consequences on the policy-making process in world health.”

Kochi, an openly undiplomatic official who won admiration for reorganizing the world fight against tuberculosis but was ousted from that job partly because he offended donors like the Rockefeller Foundation, called the Gates Foundation’s decision making “a closed internal process, and as far as can be seen, accountable to none other than itself.”

Moreover, he added, the foundation “even takes its vested interest to seeing the data it helped generate taken to policy.”

There have been hints in recent months that the World Health Organization feels threatened by the growing power of the Gates Foundation. Some scientists have said privately that the foundation was “creating its own WHO.”

---

Another New York Times article from 2017, wrote that “the Gates Foundation…has claimed for itself a core W.H.O. role: “’diagnosing the world’s health problems and identifying the solutions.’”

That’s interesting. Just because Bill Gates was formerly the richest person on the planet, he’s become qualified to diagnose and solve the world’s health problems? As many people point out he is not a doctor, not medically trained, not scientifically trained, instead a businessman.

As a Politico article put it, “Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an island. Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva.”

Kochi is not the only critic. Far from it. Some details from the Politico article:

---

“The term often used was ‘monopolistic philanthropy’, the idea that Gates was taking his approach to computers and applying it to the Gates Foundation,” said a source close to the WHO board.

However, his sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.

But the foundation’s focus on delivering vaccines and medicines, rather than on building resilient health systems, has drawn criticism. And some NGOs worry it may be too close to industry.

---

There’s a reason I wrote Robber Baron Philanthropists. I believe Gates is today’s prime example of just that. The fact is you do not have to believe he’s an evil eugenicist to see that there are problems with his approach. I hope to clearly outline the various possibilities so we’ll be exploring details about him more in the future.

Trust the WHO – Mainstream Media and Big Tech All Do…

AP News reports, for years now, people at the WHO have been pressuring Big Tech to “to take more aggressive action against anti-vaccination misinformation.”

With the pandemic, censorship has been kicked up another notch. Andy Pattison is the manager of digital solutions for the WHO. “Pattison said he and his team now directly flag misleading coronavirus information and, at times, lobby for it to be removed from Facebook, Google and Google’s YouTube service.” These and others, like Twitter, have been “cracking down in unprecedented ways.”

In fact, you’ll be censored if you say anything that is not following the guidelines of the WHO. Yep, the people that have THIS track record I’ve been sharing are the definitive authority for the world and your information.

A few days ago, CEO of Youtube, Susan Wokcicki said they’ll ban anything against WHO guidelines. This includes “anything that is medically unsubstantiated”. “So people saying ‘take vitamin C; take turmeric, we’ll cure you’, those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy,”  

Let me get this straight. The WHO is the authority who chooses which information is “correct”. So what is are the big tech people supposed to do when the WHO contradicts themselves regarding transmission of the disease, wearing masks, or a variety of other things?

Twitter really should have deleted the WHO’s tweet that there was no evidence of antibodies giving immunity!

I haven’t seen anyone saying they have cures for coronavirus, though I’m sure they’re out there. I see a lot of people talking about how vitamin C is necessary for immune system support. It seems to me this message should be propagated rather than clamped down on.

Type in ‘vitamin c immune’ in PubMed and you get 989 results. The second of these is ‘Intravenous Vitamin C for reduction of cytokines storm in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.’ This review concludes: “It is believed that IV Vit-C has been particularly effective by inhibiting the production of cytokines storm due to Corvid19.” (sic)

And now I am officially a spreader of misinformation. Oh wait, I’ve been doing that all along because I’ve been talking about vaccines in other than glowing terms!

Meanwhile, the FBI raided a spa that offered high-dose IV vitamin C to support people’s immune systems, particularly front-line workers like hospital staff.

This is what happens when the medical cartel makes the rules on what we can do and say.  

Closing Thoughts

Having explored all this it is abundantly clear to me that the WHO is not really about health. They’re about disease. It’s the pharmaceutical disease-care model all over and little else. This is further and further being propagated into mainstream and online media notably through censorship.

While I’m sure there are still good people around, it is clear that the conflicts of interest are rampant which breeds corruption. The WHO is influenced heavily by Big Pharma. They’re influenced by Gates who appears to be intimately involved with the medical cartel.

The WHO is influenced by China’s Communist Party, which is a whole other layer. And, to be honest, I’m not sure how that fits in with all the rest, though I figure I’ll find some more when digging deeper into Gates.

It comes down to this:

Do you believe that pharmaceuticals are the route to health?

No, then the World Health Organization is not your authority.

Health does not come from a pharmacist. It does not come at the tip of a syringe. I’m not saying those don’t have their uses either, but it seems to me if the WHO was really about health, things would be far, far different.

In the previous article, we dove into the current Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. If you missed that you can read it here, though this article stands alone.

In this post the goal is to paint a broader picture of the controversies surrounding the WHO over the years. It ballooned in size because the more you dig the more you find, so it will be split to two parts.

The goal of this is to make a more critically informed decision on whether we really should be looking to this organization as the authority on health in the COVID19 pandemic or any other matter of health.

But first a little bit of how I feel it is best to think about the WHO, or any large organization.

Who Controls the WHO?

Is it China? Is it Bill Gates? Is it Big Pharma? (Many people are latching straight onto their favorite enemy right now.)

But control is not a useful word to be using. The world is messy. Lots of people want to dismiss any “conspiracy theories” because they often point out that control of something so complex, or too many people involved which would be complicit, that this idea is ludicrous.

And I agree with that for the most part. Systems are complicated with many interlocking parts.

That’s why the way I see it, it’s not so much about control as about influence.

If Big Pharma can get policies and decisions swayed in their favor just 10% of the time, as I’ll prove shortly they’ve done over and over again, that gives them an unfair advantage. If one high-up person is “in their pocket” and they make a decision on a policy that has lasting impact this has occurred.

This then means through time they’ll continue to benefit allowing for more similar actions to be taken. In other words, the 10% compounds over time.

It also means that the one person becomes two, becomes five. Any degree of corruption at high levels allows for more corrupt people, not less, to gain more power. After all, almost all of these positions are appointed not elected. (And we know elections can be gamed too!)

Corruption spreads. In a backroom deal someone basically says you do this thing for us you’ll get the position. With the position you help us gain more profits and power so we incentivize the next person…

At the same time corruption stops “good people” from being successful. They get locked out in one fashion or another. We’ll see examples of that from employees of the WHO blowing the whistle later on.

If Gates can earmark certain funds he donates to specific projects, and those projects involve buying drugs from companies he is invested in, personally or through his foundation, that’s a serious conflict of interest at the very least. He then gains money that allows him to further influence the WHO. This topic will be explored further in part two.

Understand, because the WHO is a large organization, with about 7000 employees, these kinds of things can be occurring while there are also legitimate, good life-saving projects also being done. It’s not black and white or an either/or thing, it is both/and situation.  

Although systems are important, understand that these come down to people making decisions. Thus, it may be best to think of the people involved in a few different buckets:

1. There are some really good people that are genuinely striving to solve the world’s health problems.
2. There are some that are simply bureaucratic types that may not influence things one way or another. They’re largely just doing their jobs, punching the clock.
3. There are some that are undoubtedly and fully corrupt. (Remember, sociopaths exist and they have a higher than average chance of rising in position because of such!)
4. There are those that allow corruption in small ways (such as a consultancy fee from a pharmaceutical company). As we know from doctors that attend pharma-sponsored events, meals or receive kickbacks, they make think they’re then making independent choices but their actions show they’ve been swayed. (One study example here.)

The saying is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With these types of people involved and with money involved, corruption is pretty much inevitable…even if the majority of people are in group one!

The question is not whether the WHO is corrupt or not. Instead the big question is how much corruption is involved? How much harmful influence is involved? This exploration is not exhaustive but is meant to give us some answers to these questions.

Trust WHO

Several things mentioned here I found out because of the documentary Trust Who by Lillan Franck. If you have Amazon Prime you can watch it free.

This video was recently removed from Vimeo a few days ago due to violating their policies. Here you can see comments on this from the producer of the film as well as a clip from inside.

If you’re interested, I suggest watching the documentary soon. Amazon has similarly censored documentaries before due to political pressure so it may not be available there for long. More on increasing censorship surrounding the WHO at the end of this part two.

I report below on several things learned from that documentary, but certainly not everything. And I also share other things that are not covered there at all.

Tobacco Science and WHO Consultants

Tobacco having big effects on health, it has been a major focus of the World Health Organization for a long time.

Of course, tobacco science, lobbying and various other methods were very effective in keeping this from happening for many years. Thomas Zeltner, one of the good guys, chaired a committee which looked at Big Tobacco’s influence on the WHO itself. This resulted in the report “Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World Health Organization” in July 2000.

Just a few quotes from inside:

• “Evidence from tobacco industry documents reveals that tobacco companies have operated for many years with the deliberate purpose of subverting the efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO) to control tobacco use. The attempted subversion has been elaborate, well financed, sophisticated, and usually invisible.”
• “In one of their most significant strategies for influencing WHO’s tobacco control activities, tobacco companies developed and maintained relationships with current or former WHO staff, consultants and advisors. In some cases, tobacco companies hired or offered future employment to former WHO or UN officials in order to indirectly gain valuable contacts within these organizations that might assist in its goal of influencing WHO activities. Of greatest concern, tobacco companies have, in some cases, had their own consultants in positions at WHO, paying them to serve the goals of tobacco companies while working for WHO. Some of these cases raise serious questions about whether the integrity of WHO decision making has been compromised.”
• “[T]obacco is unlike other threats to health. Reversing the epidemic of tobacco use will be about more than fighting addiction and disease; it will be about overcoming a determined and powerful industry, many of whose most important counter-strategies are carried out in secret.”

It is so interesting to read through this 260 page document. (I’ve only skimmed it.) The vast majority of tactics and strategies are laid out. It is well-known that Big Tobacco engaged in this type of multi-pronged warfare and propaganda.

But most people just can’t see it being done in other areas like medicine despite lots of proof of it happening.

Captured Agency by Big Pharma

If you’re not familiar with the term, a “captured agency” is a government agency unduly influenced by economic interest groups directly affected by its decisions. With capture those groups are able to shape regulations and policies that further benefit them.

The following comes from WikiLeaks from back in 2009.

“This is a confidential pharmaceutical industry trade association dossier about the WHO Expert Working Group (EWG) on R&D Financing. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA; “Big Pharma”) gave its members 4 documents: a non-public draft report of the WHO EWG and a non-public Comparative Analysis done by the working group, the IFPMA Overview of the EWG Comparative Analysis, and IFPMA summary slide on the EWG Draft Report. The compilation of documents shows the influence of “Big Pharma” on the policy making decisions of the WHO, the UN body safeguarding public health. These confidential documents were obtained by the drug industry before their public release to WHO member states (scheduled to be released May 2010). The document also illustrates that the WHO expert group was highly responsive to industry lobbying — a result that public health groups had feared since early 2009, when the expert group met with the industry, but refused to meet with public health groups known to be industry critics.” (emphasis added)

For example, here’s a quote from inside of one of the documents. “While the overall result is in line with most of the industry positions on this matter, please note that the EWG is currently meeting and there is still room for them to introduce new language. We will update you as new information become available, and will keep monitoring closely the process in these days should any input be requested from friendly EWG Members.”

This is the definition of captured agency! Understand it doesn’t mean that Big Pharma wholly owns the WHO. It means they’re able to get some policies made in their favor.

Those policies typically involve the buying of their product, giving them more profits that can then be used to do more lobbying and regulatory capture.

Here is a specific example of the results of such…

WHO Fueling the Opioid Epidemic

My Medical Monopoly Musings covered some of the ruthless tactics of pharmaceutical companies in spreading opioids across the US and the world. (See #20-#24 for specifics.)

How they did fraudulent science to show that opioids weren’t addictive. How they bribed doctors and professional organizations and hospitals. How they even got into the opioid addiction treatment business to cover both ends of the game. How the DEA tracked the numbers but did nothing.

Before my research this morning, I was not aware of how the WHO was involved. But of course they were!

In 2019, US Congress representatives Katherine Clark and Hal Rogers, released the report Corrupting Influence Purdue & the WHO: Exposing Dangerous Opioid Manufacturer Influence at the World Health Organization. Some revelations include:

• The WHO Collaborating Centre for Policy and Communications in Cancer Care at the University of Wisconsin Pain & Policy Studies Group received $1.6 million from Purdue Pharma from 1999 to 2010.
• The official WHO guidelines, “Achieving Balance in National Opioid Control Policy: Guidelines for Assessment,” relies on “the oft-repeated Purdue claim that dependence occurs in less than one percent of patients, despite no scientific evidence supporting this claim and a multitude of studies contradicting it.”
• The WHO changed its policy to recommend Oxycontin in both steps 2 and 3 of its 3-step pain ladder, whereas previously they were just in one step. This was Purdue’s goal to sell more drugs.
• “The WHO is unambiguously recommending that highly addictive opioids should be available to children even though they openly recognize that there is little evidence to support that recommendation, and that any further research on the topic would ‘likely’ change the suggested course of action.” Wow! Actually it doesn’t surprise me because drug companies do prey on children.
• The report concludes, “The World Health Organization is intended to be a steward of the public trust. By allowing Purdue and the opioid industry to influence guidelines on how opioids should be prescribed and regulated, the WHO has violated that trust. The agency owes the public an explanation. The WHO must explain why these documents have been crafted with the input of people with decades of financial relationships with the opioid industry and written to include specific policy changes envisioned by Purdue.”

With major money you can influence plenty of key people and organizations as this map shows.

Pain management is just one of many topics covered my the WHO.

Former WHO Director General Warns of Pharma Industry Taking Over

Halfdan Mahler was the WHO Director General from 1973 to 1988. In 1988 the Danish newspaper Politiken warned against exactly this happening with the pharmaceutical industry. He was quoted as saying, “the industry is taking over WHO.”

That was back then! Remember once corruption has a foothold it expands over time. The WHO changed their policy to allow private funding in or around 2005. This allows for more industry influence.

An article in the Journal of Integrative Medicine and Therapy by Søren Ventegodt states, “The results from the Cochrane reviews, which most researchers regard as a much more reliable source of information on medicine than the data coming from the pharmaceutical industry itself, clash harshly with the recommendations of WHO in its drug directories…Many drugs listed in the WHO drug directories, like “WHOs model list of essential medicines”, have no value as medicine according to Cochrane reviews, since the drugs are dangerous, often harmful, and without significant beneficial effects for the patient.”

Unfortunately, the drug companies now have their influence spread into the Cochrane reviewers and databases too! But it started out as a noble and useful venture but they couldn’t allow good science to continue to refute them.

Another WHO Whistleblower

“At a meeting between the Director-General and prospective vaccine manufacturer most of our colleagues were excluded. Me too. I was a head of department in the WHO and one of the Director General’s closest associates, an important member of staff in the organization. On that specific day I went down to the conference room and the person at the door said: “No, this is a private meeting.’ Even though I was a leading official at the WHO, responsible for an important topic that was under discussions there. I wasn’t allowed to enter. That demonstrates that there wasn’t enough transparency about what was being negotiated.”

I’m hypothesizing here but such a meeting could involve an agreement on a policy or decision that would benefit such a manufacturer just like we saw evidence of with opioids. Likely, there would be some sort of quid pro quo in doing so for the WHO or specific people at the WHO.

Once again, there are good people at the WHO that really want to help. Unfortunately, these people are locked out, quit or otherwise have their influence minimized as the corrupting influence spreads.

I was trying to find out the specific dates Velasquez worked at this position and I stumbled on an interesting report about him. (pg. 9-10)

Back in 2001 he was the Director of WHO’s Drug Action Programme. He was mugged and robbed in Rio de Janeiro. Two days later he was attacked again in Miami on Lincoln Road with one attacker saying, “Let’s hope you learnt a lesson from Rio. Stop criticizing the pharmaceutical industry.” Then ten days later he received a midnight phone call which asked him “Are you afraid?” He asked what this was about and the reply was “Miami, Lincoln Road.” Later the same voice called him telling him not to attend a World Trade Organization meeting on drug patent rights.

As is shown across the world, Big Pharma has ways of getting people aligned to its interests and of criticizing, hampering and threatening those that refuse to play ball.

What else would you expect from “organized crime” which the pharmaceutical industry fits the definition of?

Swine Flu (H1N1) Pandemic

Back in 2009, ABC News reported, “The World Health Organization may have inadvertently triggered a new wave of fear over the threat of a swine flu pandemic today by suggesting that up to 2 billion people could be infected if the current outbreak worsens.”

Only 11 years ago, yet if you review this case you see some interesting parallels…

The WHO changed their rules about levels of pandemic for this one, lessening the severity of disease required. “When then asked by a CNN reporter to explain the decision to declare Phase 5 in the light of the fact the WHO had previously maintained a pandemic entailed large numbers of human fatalities and severe illness, the response of the secretariat was to delete its guidelines from its website.”

The reason for the change? A level 5 pandemic would then activate policies already in place where countries had to buy drugs and vaccines.

The Council of Europe is an official United Nations Observer. They launched an inquiry into the WHO’s handling of the pandemic scandal. The resolution for the inquiry stated, “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make  them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of  insufficiently tested vaccines.”

Wolfgang Wodarg, chair of the Council of Europe states in the documentary, “The situation was evaluated correspondingly by the Council of Europe. Reprimand was issued. The lack of transparency, the role of the experts who were being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Then changes were demanded, but the WHO didn’t respond to the Council of Europe. The WHO only turned up for the first hearing and then didn’t come again. It didn’t have to. It isn’t obliged to supply us with any information. We can’t demand to confiscate the files, look through them. It is impossible. There isn’t anybody who can do those things. And there’s no investigating commission like in Parliament where the MPs can go and say something has to stop and then everybody has to turn up and show their files. There’s nothing like that. The WHO can operate in a very clandestine fashion.”

So nothing much changed…

As I previously reported, in the US, the CDC did similar things, including stopping actual counting of the swine flu cases while reporting large numbers and telling people to get he vaccine.

Rampant Conflicts of Interest

How is this all possible? Conflicts of interest of course. Articles in the BMJ point out more detail:

“WHO enduringly failed to have a policy regarding conflicts of interest…Juhani Eskola (Finland) a member of the WHO group ‘Strategic Advisory Group of Experts’ (SAGE) has received 6 million Euros for his research center from the vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline during 2009.”

“WHO chose not to disclose financial conflicts of interest among industry sponsored experts guiding its influenza policy.”

Disclosure is not always clear. Regarding these the BBC reported, “It is not clear whether these conflicts were notified privately by WHO to governments around the world, the BMJ said, and a request to see conflict of interest declarations was turned down. In addition, membership of the “emergency committee” which advised WHO’s director general Margaret Chan on declaring an influenza pandemic has been kept secret. It means the names of the 16 committee members are known only to people within WHO, and as such their possible conflicts of interest with drug companies are unknown.”

Of course, as should be expected, the WHO dismissed this stuff as “conspiracy theories.” Let’s see. You’re having secret meetings. You’re hiding conflicts of interest. You change your long held rules and cover that up. Your partners make a boat load of money from doing so…but nothing to see here folks!

There’s plenty more examples. “Dr Neil Ferguson reported receiving small consultancy fees from Baxter, GlaxoSmithKline and Roche for serving on scientific advisory boards and presenting at symposiums. He also received limited amount of consultancy fees from insurance companies (Swiss Re, RMS Ltd.,) and Serco Ltd., a logistics company for advice on pandemic risk and planning. These payments occurred prior to 2008.”

I’m very curious as to what exactly those “small” and “limited” consultancy fees are.

He’s part of SAGE, Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, that advises the UK and don’t reveal any information about their doing so. (Because science done in secret is always the best way to do science!)

So we have a wide range of disclosed, partially disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest. This, the money flowing, is how corruption occurs. It’s not just Big Pharma, but we see it elsewhere too.

Genetically modified food, pesticide use or EMF’s. (Yeah, we haven’t even covered those areas but it happens in them all.) And it happens in nuclear energy too…

WHO and Chernobyl

Drug companies are not the only regulatory capture problem!

I don’t know much about Chernobyl. It happened when I was one year old. Just recently I watched the HBO limited series on it. Obviously, I do not take the show as what really happened, but it was eye-opening nonetheless.

Here is what the WHO says regarding Chernobyl on its website:

“A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded. As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.”

Fifty directly dead? That number seems very low if you know anything about radiation. Does it seem low to you?

Robert Parsons, a freelance journalist, wrote, “For 55 years, as of May 29, 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been under the heel of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in matters regarding ionizing radiation and health. The IAEA, whose mandate is the promotion of everything nuclear, has thus prevented the WHO from carrying out its public health mandate in a world more and more exposed to the lethal effects of ionizing radiation.”

If you want to dive deeper into this matter, then read Parsons article . There’s plenty more to this story such as:

• The 1995 WHO Chernobyl Conference as organized by then Director General Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima that drew 700 scientists. Although the proceedings from the conference were promised, these never appeared. After retirement, Nakajima said that these were blocked by the IAEA.

• Meanwhile the New York Academy of Sciences published a translation of a 2007 Russian publication that calculated the death toll from 1986 to 2004 at 985,000. Just a bit different from the official WHO estimate!

• Because of all this Independent WHO, a grassroots movement, held a daily protest from 8am to 6pm in front of WHO headquarters every single working day for ten years (from April 26^th 2007 to April 26^th 2017). Their goal was to remind the WHO that it is failing in its duty to protect those populations who are victims of radioactive contamination. After a decade of continued official denial they stopped the protest to focus on other methods.

WHO and Fukushima

With that track record in Chernobyl, it shouldn’t be so surprising that we see more failings for the WHO in regards to Fukushima.

NY Times reported in an piece titled, ‘W.H.O. Sees Low Health Risks From Fukushima Accident’ that “A study published on Thursday by the World Health Organization on the health risks associated with the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant suggested that the risk for certain types of cancers had increased slightly among children exposed to the highest doses of radioactivity, but that there would most likely be no observable increase in cancer rates in the wider Japanese population.”

On this, Alison Katz said “I worked for the World Health Organisation myself for 18 years and since I have left I have been involved with ‘Independent WHO’, which works in the area of radiation and health…The Japanese people are already talking. And they are reporting very, you know, very serious health effects in children that the World Health Organisation is ignoring, is not talking about, doesn’t mention in its report. You know, at the time of Chernobyl the people couldn’t talk freely…The other major omission is that the World Health Organisation has never considered anything except cancer as a health effect.”

Meanwhile, the director-general of the WHO at the time Margaret Chan acknowledges that no amount of radiation is good to get in direct contradiction to the WHO and IAEA. “For me, no radiation inside the body is good.”

Industry influence. Cover-ups. Denial of science. Internal censorship. Check, check, check, check.

Can you believe we’re just getting started? Even more in the next part…

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has served since 2017 as the Director-General of the World Health Organization. He is the first non-medical doctor to do so, instead a PhD in community health.

Previously, he was the Minister of Health from 2005 to 2012 and Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 in Ethiopia.

Tigray People’s Liberation Front

Tedros is a member of the TPLF, an ethnic based leftist political party. The TPLF is actively listed as a perpetrator in the Global Terrorism Database, based on ten incidents from between 1976 and 1990.

New York Times reports Tedros “was the country’s foreign minister, and during this time the government suppressed dissent. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports describe villages displaced, protesters massacred by the police, dissidents tortured and journalists imprisoned. Dr. Tedros is not accused of participation, but he is among the ruling party elite. The rights violations ‘should never have happened,’ he said.”

Here is one such voice that fought against Tedros saying he WAS responsible. The Amharas are an ethnic group in Ethiopia, comprising one third of the population. The Amhara Professionals Union produced this paper, “International Organizations Leadership Recruitment Policies: the Failed Experiment of Dr. Tedros A. Ghebreyesus Candidacy for WHO Director General Position”

The executive summary lists out 13 points, of which they say Tedros is guilty, specifically against their people:

1. Discrimination/Marginalization
2. Crime against Humanity
3. Systematic genocidal violence
4. Biased policies, inaction and impartiality
5. Corruption and misuse of budget
6. Disregard for Humanity
7. Incompetency/Inaction
8. Lack of transparency
9. Maleficence and risking public safety
10. Poor judgement
11. Lack of accountability
12. Violation of basic Human Rights/Suppression of freedom of expression
13. [Lack of] Integrity/Truthfulness/Honesty

The document appears to back up all the claims with statistics and references in this 70 page document.

The terrorist TPLF helped fund Tedros’ bid for WHO director.

Covering Up Cholera Outbreaks?

Tedros has been accused of covering up previous epidemics, specifically three times with cholera in Ethiopia. To be fair, these accusations were from an adviser to an opponent in his WHO directorship. Of course, Tedros denied these accusations.

But these were not completely baseless. Earlier articles discussed unnamed health officials in Ethiopia (Tedros was top health person at the time) of not wanting to test what would ultimately be labelled “acute watery diarrhea” for the cholera microbes. This was because of fear of affecting food exports and tourism.

A telling section of that NY Times article says, “Under the International Health Regulations, which apply to all W.H.O. members, countries must accurately report disease outbreaks. But the W.H.O. can officially report only what countries say. Historically, some countries have tried to cover up or play down outbreaks of human or animal diseases for fear that travel restrictions would be imposed, tourism would suffer or food exports would be curtailed — or simply as a matter of national pride…The regulations were strengthened after China denied for months in 2003 that it had a serious outbreak of lethal respiratory disease in its southern cities. That outbreak ultimately became known as SARS, for severe acute respiratory syndrome, and spread to several other countries, including Canada.” (emphasis added)

Elected as Director General of WHO

Elections are done by secret ballots. This allows for backdoor deals to be cut. Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, tells of a prior election for the WHO director in 1991.

“I was in a queue at the post office when the conference room door flung open at my back and an enormous rolled rug flew out, narrowly missing me and landing with a loud thud that couldn’t cover the sound of an African minister of health’s roaring voice.”

“A rug! A rug?” the large East African woman shouted at a trio of Japanese diplomats scampering out of the chamber. “You think you can buy my vote with a rug? Do you think I am that cheap?”

“The enraged minister then loudly delineated a list of “promises” (a.k.a. bribes) the Japanese had reportedly made to other voting members of the executive board, including construction of a hospital, payment of school fees for the children of Switzerland-based nationals employed at WHO, promised employment in plush Geneva for friends and family of the would-be voter and a range of big construction projects. The episode was astounding not because it transpired, but that it did so in front of many witnesses, including an American journalist.”

Understanding the backroom deals are made for organizations such as the WHO (and certainly not the only one) is helpful for understanding geopolitics.

New York Times reports “Tedros was elected with the strong support of China…He has firmly backed Beijing’s claims to have been open and transparent about the outbreak, despite strong evidence that it suppressed early reports on infections.”

In 2012, the African Union headquarters was built in Ethiopia for $200 million. This was the largest construction project since the 1970’s paid for by China. This was one construction project of many. CNN reports, “While Beijing defends its aid practices on the grounds they are neutral and respect recipient nations’ sovereignty, Chinese money is not wholly unpolitical.”

“China’s President Xi Jinping pledged $60bn for development in Africa,” which included $4 billion for the Ethiopia-Djibouti railway.

Tedros himself mentioned in 2015 on Facebook, “Under the “Go Global” program of #China, we expect increased Chinese investment flow to #Ethiopia . The 8 industrial parks identified throughout #Ethiopia , some already under construction, will facilitate the migration of Chinese companies to #Ethiopia”

I don’t know exactly what sort of deals went down, but it is clear that Tedros is very much tied to people in power in the Chinese Communist Party and the money that flows because of such.

President Robert Mugabe

Current events are not the first time that Tedros is facing calls to resign. In 2017, he appointed Zimbabwe president, Robert Mugabe as the WHO’s goodwill ambassador for non-communicable disease in Africa.

Here’s a bio video if you’re not familiar with this socialist revolutionary turned dictator.

A Guardian article wrote, “Mugabe rigged elections and began a programme of land reform in which white farmers were forcibly evicted to make way for Zanu-PF party cronies or black Zimbabweans who lacked the skills and capital to farm. This helped throw the economy into disarray. Hyperinflation ran riot and supermarket shelves were empty. The once-proud school and health systems began to crumble. The political environment also became increasingly hostile, with activists and journalists persecuted, jailed or murdered. More than 200 people died in political violence around the 2008 election, which Mugabe was widely seen as having stolen from the MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai.”

Tedros said, “I am honoured to be joined by President Mugabe, of Zimbabwe, a country that places universal health coverage and health promotion at the centre of its policies to provide healthcare to all.”

Please note that Mugabe did not use Zimbabwe’s healthcare, instead traveling Singapore for himself and his family.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) wrote a withering report of Mugabe’s government. “What happens when a government presides over the dramatic reversal of its population’s access to food, clean water, basic sanitation, and healthcare? When government policies lead directly to the shuttering of hospitals and clinics, the closing of its medical school, and the beatings of health workers? We don’t need to wonder. It is happening now in Zimbabwe. PHR has witnessed the devastation caused by the willful neglect of Zimbabwe’s people by the Government of Robert Mugabe.”

Even the US state department said: “This appointment clearly contradicts the United Nations ideals of respect for human rights and human dignity.”

The appointment was rescinded under the private and public outcry. Wasn’t this obviously a bad idea to Tedros before it happened? Many think that this appointment was payback to both Mugabe and China.

“Hillel Neuer, executive director of the watchdog organization UN Watch, told me, “It’s clear that this was a prize, if not compensation, for something.” Tedros may have been rewarding Mugabe for supporting his nomination to the WHO post last year, when Tedros was Ethiopia’s foreign minister and Mugabe headed the African Union… Beijing strongly supports Mugabe, and Mugabe has repaid the favor, helping to ease pressure from Africans who criticize China for exploiting Africa’s natural resources. In December 2015, Mugabe gushed about Xi at the China-Africa summit in Johannesburg,” from the Washington Post.

Relationship to Taiwan

The day after being elected as Director, Tedros reiterated the WHO’s adherence to the one-China principle, meaning that Taiwan would not be recognized.

This has led to the well-circulated video of WHO official, Canadian epidemiologist Bruce Aylward dodging questions about Taiwan.

This is particularly interesting because “Taiwan said its doctors had heard from mainland colleagues that medical staff were getting ill — a sign of human-to-human transmission. Taipei officials said they reported this to both International Health Regulations (IHR), a WHO framework for exchange of epidemic prevention and response data between 196 countries, and Chinese health authorities on December 31. Taiwanese government officials told the Financial Times the warning was not shared with other countries.”

Handling the Coronavirus Pandemic

Here is a good and short overview video on the WHO’s response, which covers some of the other things mentioned here.

On Jan 14^th, the WHO tweeted “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China”

On January 28^th, Tedros talked about China including, “the transparency they have demonstrated, including sharing data.”

Please note that China has officially revised their stats, increasing them by 50% as reported on April 17th. (As if these new numbers should be taken as the truth.)

Meanwhile, coronavirus whistleblowers in China are still missing.

The WHO didn’t even send a team to China until February 10^th.

On February 15^th, Tedros stated, “China has bought the world time.”

Meanwhile, “John Mackenzie, a member of the WHO executive committee, publicly stated that international action would have been different if not for China’s “reprehensible” obfuscation of outbreak’s extent.”

In a recent report put out by the WHO, Tedros stated:  “It has now been more than 100 days since WHO was notified of the first cases of what we now call COVID‑19, and much has changed since we launched the first Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan two months ago… One of the main things we’ve learned is that the faster all cases are found, tested and isolated, the harder we make it for this virus to spread.”

Are you kidding me? I have never been a health minister. I’m not a part of the WHO. I’m not an infectious disease expert. But I could have told you from the very beginning of this that finding cases, testing them and then isolating them would help. Seriously, this is what you’ve learned?

Today, April 22nd, he said, “Most countries are still in the early stages of their epidemics and some that were affected early in the pandemic are now starting to see a resurgence in cases. Make no mistake, we have a long way to go. This virus will be with us for a long time. There is no question that stay-at-home orders and other physical distancing measures have successfully suppressed transmission in many countries. But this virus remains extremely dangerous.”

Since the WHO is the leader of the response for this pandemic that is almost assuredly what is going to happen.

Again I ask, is Tedros merely inept at his job? Or is all this a sign of corruption? I leave you to judge for yourself.

Yet this only scratches the surface. In the next article I’ll be detailing patterns of corruption from the WHO over the years. Lots of other people have been covering Tedros as of late but I went far and wide to round up what’s coming next.

History is the best indicator of future performance. History of the WHO helps give perspective on current events. Because they are the worldwide health authority now we should know if they deserve that status. Stay tuned!