Bulletin N° 1043
“Truth about Ukraine”
March 18, 2022b
by film director Nikita Mikhalkov
with English subtitles
Subject: Seeking “Truth” in the midst of Class Struggle, like digging for gold and hitting the sewer line.
Subject: Seeking “Truth” in the midst of Class Struggle, like digging for gold and hitting the sewer line.
June 3, 2022
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
June 3, 2022
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
The notorious Kiel School of Law in Nazi Germany (1933-1945) came into existence to overcome the cognitive dissonance created by the ideological conflicts caused by powerful corporate states lined up against each other. It was necessary to replace the prevailing liberal theory of truth - the so-called "correspondence theory" - with "coherence theory" which was more suited to corporate monopoly-state objectives.
Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and corporate America were the major actors in this corporatist transition and with the expansion of military production, at the cost of many millions of lives, they began to create a new world order which, after the military defeat of Nazi Germany, was sustained by the perpetual preparation for war and total annihilation, in support of capitalist accumulation and the eventual elimination of class struggle, inspired with the vision of its eventual replacement by a rigid social hierarchy of absolute conformity, which it was believed the future corporate economy would require.
The judicial system of Nazi Germany was the first in the modern industrial states to conform to this requirement of “ideological coherency,” which paradoxically corresponded to the material requirements of the day.
A third theory of truth, the “pragmatic theory,” which now prevails in imperialist countries, simply states: "if it works don't fix it." This brings us back to the cognitive dissonance that we are experiencing today, which is no more than contending ideologies struggling for dominance in the domain of political hegemony. In other words, the ruling classes, once again at war, now seek experimentation to see what works for their political-economic interests – both immediate and long-term. It goes without saying that they would like to neutralize any notion of social class resistance against their hegemony in the course of their competition for more control and aggrandizement.
If we are not left confused as to what our real needs might be; then we are dangerous to our rulers.
Below please find the continuation of our discussion of real social relationships in the late capitalist period, when by all accounts social class forces are confronting the end game and must choose their collective strategies and tactics accordingly.
“The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma,
and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health”
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (audio edition read by Bruce Wagner)
Audiobook, Part I
(the Dedication & Acknowledgements to Chapter 6)
Audiobook, Part II
(Chapter 7 to the Afterword)
(1035 page electronic MS)
(L’édition française : Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates et Big Pharma - Leur guerre mondiale contre la démocratie et la santé publique, trans. par Pierre Barois)
Table of Contents
Dedications and Acknowledgements…viii
Chapter 1: Mismanaging a Pandemic…(con’d.)
Chapter 2: Pharma Profits over Public Health…118
Chapter 3: The HIV Pandemic Template for Pharma Profiteering…126
Chapter 4: The Pandemic Template: AIDS and AZT…148
Chapter 5: The HIV Heresies…178
Chapter 6: Burning The HIV Heretics…209
Chapter 7: Dr. Fauci, Mr. Hyde: NIAID’s Barbaric and Illegal
Experiments on Children…243
Chapter 8: White Mischief: Dr. Fauci’s African Atrocities…257
“They increased the number of diseases from two to nearly thirty
that could be classified as AIDS, and after that they started a global
testing program of ‘vulnerable populations,’ which just coincidentally
happen to be people not in a position to defend themselves easily.
They started to find AIDS everywhere, including in Africa, but
including in the United States—and wouldn’t you know, one of the
communities they found was the African-American community, and
they tested a lot of women and they found a lot of HIV-positive
women, and they decided, well, let’s go forward.”
—Kary Mullis, winner of 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry
As Vera Sharav points out, racism is an abiding feature of
medical authoritarianism and human experimentation. Molecular biologist Harvey
Bialy, the editor of the Nature Biotechnology journal, observed that the subtle
backdrop of racial and sexual bigotry and
bullying are the distinguishing attributes of AIDS research: “The fearful fascination with the contagion was amplified by the official narrative that the disease originated in Africans doing weird things with monkeys, and spread to the voodoo kingdom of Haiti, and that the sexual depravity of homosexuals drove the disease into the United States.” Dr. Fauci’s critic, Charles Ortleb, the editor of New York Native and author of a biography of the NIAID director, recalls that the theme of unwanted minorities spreading contagion was a standardized soliloquy of totalitarianism, most notoriously Hitler’s stoking of public fears of
tuberculosis to incite bigotry toward Jews: “There was always this undertone of bigotry with AIDS. I don’t think we can dismiss as coincidence that the population that they targeted for their toxic concoctions were gays, Blacks, Hispanics, and Africans.”
And Dr. Fauci did not restrict his unethical experiments with AIDS drugs to American children. By June 2003, NIH and NIAID were running 10,906 clinical trials in ninety
countries, and Dr. Fauci’s pioneering AIDS Branch, newly christened DAIDS (Division of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome), was testing new toxic antiviral concoctions in
some four hundred clinical trials in the United States and globally. Dr. Fauci’s PIs targeted developing nations that lacked strong institutional structures for protecting impoverished citizens from the abusive practices of powerful pharmaceutical multinationals. According to Vera Sharav, Dr. Fauci had NIAID and its pharmaceutical company partners move his most controversial and risky studies offshore “because they can do stuff that they could never get away with in the United States.”
Journalist Celia Farber concurs with Sharav’s assessment: “The racism is cloaked inside carefully crafted philanthropic manipulations such as ‘access’ to drugs. It’s never access to clean drinking water, education, sanitation, nutrition. It’s a very blighting message for the US to constantly be browbeating Africans with our self-serving messaging that they are so sick, and we have just the drugs to ‘save’ their lives. When the opposite happens, it’s swept away and hidden behind the false front of charity. I call it Pharma-Colonialism.”
Africa has been a Pharma colony for over a century. It is the venue of choice for companies seeking cooperative government officials, compliant populations, the lowest per-patient enrollment costs, and lax oversight by media and regulatory officials. Powerless, often illiterate, and, if necessary, disposable quasi volunteers allow Pharma’s PIs to paper over even catastrophic side effects and mistakes. In 2005, FDA officials learned that Dr. Fauci’s DAIDS team had concealed scores of deaths and hundreds of injuries during HIV drug trials in Africa with another of his toxic chemotherapy vanity products, Nevirapine.
Dr. Fauci’s fingerprints were all over DAIDS’s sketchy African experiments. In October 1988, his success at getting approval for AZT won him the equivalent of a billion-dollar lottery for a career technocrat—a mention during then-Vice President George H. W. Bush’s
You’ve probably never heard of him. He’s a very fine researcher, top
doctor at National Institute of Health, working hard doing something,
research on this disease of AIDS.
The accolade gained him an even larger prize—access to and the trust of the new president.
Two administrations later, Dr. Fauci warned President George W. Bush that HIV had gotten a toehold in Africa and was spreading like wildfire. He persuaded the president to demonstrate his bona fides as a “compassionate conservative” by redirecting the United States foreign aid
spending into the heroic enterprise of eliminating African AIDS. Accordingly, on January 19, 2002, President Bush announced a $15 billion package to combat AIDS, including a $500 million program to purchase millions of doses of Nevirapine for distribution to African mothers and children. Dr. Fauci told the President that Nevirapine would save millions of lives by preventing maternal transmission of HIV to unborn children. President Bush would later repeat this promise in his 2003 State of the Union address.
Dr. Fauci’s artful 1988 achievement of winning FDA approvals
for AZT had launched the AIDS drug gold rush. Nevirapine was German
pharmaceutical giant Boehringer Ingelheim’s beachhead in the race. Boehringer
had apparently lifted Nevirapine from the same toxic junk pile from which
Burroughs Wellcome had retrieved AZT. Canadian regulators rejected Nevirapine—in
1996 and 1998—due to its potent toxicity and dubious efficacy. In December
2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association advised health care
workers exposed to HIV to avoid prescribing Nevirapine after the drug caused
life-threatening liver toxicity in patients. A 2001 FDA review reported twenty
“serious adverse events” (meaning, death,
hospitalization, “life-threatening,” or permanently disabling) resulting from brief, prophylactic Nevirapine exposure. Nevertheless, the German chemical company found a soft landing for its product at NIAID.(pp.257-258)
. . .
Rooting Out Integrity in the Workplace.
Dr. Fishbein didn’t last long in his official capacity as the
DAIDS official in charge of enforcing compliance with clinical research and
ethical policy. His lethal misstep was
his decision to follow a trail of irregularities affecting a NIAID drug trial called ESPRIT, which tested interleukin-2 (IL-2), a cancer chemotherapy and AIDS drug, known by its
brand name, Proleukin. The ESPRIT study was investigating IL-2 clinical outcomes in individuals with asymptomatic HIV+. In December 2003, the ESPRIT Medical Officer alerted Dr. Fishbein to troubling side effects in the Proleukin trial, namely, capillary leak and an unusual psychiatric side effect: suicidal ideation. The Medical Officer, Larry Fox, worried that NIAID was putting volunteers in danger by withholding the information about those hazards from the Investigator Brochure, as the law required. This brochure is an FDA-mandated document containing updated information detailing, among other things, the side effects and risks of an investigational drug. It provides clinical trial investigators with safety
information compiled across study sites to keep study subjects informed about emerging hazards. Furthermore, without an up-to-date document (NIAID had issued the last one in 2000), NIAID was not adequately warning potential clinical trial enrollees about these serious dangers. Recalls Dr. Fishbein, “The drug had grave risks for suicidal ideation, and capillary leaks. The study leadership was ignoring their legal duty to inform the study recruits and participants about these troubling signals.”
By this time, NIAID had invested some $36 million dollars in ESPRIT and had thousands of subjects enrolled at two hundred international locations over nearly four years.50 If these asymptomatic participants were to learn about the emerging risks, NIAID feared they would drop out. It would also be difficult to attract new volunteers. The failure to retain subjects or recruit additional volunteers would nullify the study, one of NIAID’s most costly ever. (Ironically, after eight years and 4,150 subjects, ESPRIT concluded Proleukin offered “no benefits” to clinical outcome in HIV+ patients.)
It was now evident to key NIAID officials that Dr. Fishbein was becoming an all-around nuisance. He was professional, curious, incorruptible, and far too serious about performing his duties. “His big problem,” says Farber, “is that he thought his job was legit. Dr. Fishbein’s personal virtues were all fatal character flaws within the NIAID institutional culture.” Dr. Fishbein’s refusal to toe the line sent him stumbling into the terminal career cul-de-sac at NIAID.
Dr. Fishbein explained further about the Proleukin trial: “It
was a serious violation of protocols and the researchers were ignoring their
legal duty to report the signal. They
omitted and whitewashed all these safety problems. You can’t just focus on efficacy and ignore safety.” Dr. Fishbein told AP reporter John Solomon, “The ones that were in the
study, and those that wanted to get in the study, neither were being informed. NIAID feared that if they understood the risks, they would drop out.”
Dr. Fishbein had entered a dangerous realm at NIAID. He was interfering with ongoing drug approvals. Tramont was angry that Dr. Fishbein was allowing concerns about patient safety to become an obstacle to the agency’s central mission of getting new drugs through the approval process with positive reviews. Tramont warned Dr. Fishbein to slow down. “You are moving too fast. You need to get to know how this place works,” Tramont told him. “We need to act more like a pharmaceutical company; we need to get patients, and get studies done.”
In the course of his IL-2 investigation, Dr. Fishbein stumbled
on another awkward fact: Anthony Fauci personally owned patents to IL-2 and
stood to make millions in royalties if the treatment won FDA approval. Dr. Fishbein
was shocked: “Dr. Fauci had a personal financial
interest in the drug being tested! He was listed as a co-owner on the patent for Proleukin, and stood to earn royalties from it!” According to little-known HHS rules at that time, NIH employees could collect unlimited royalty payments from drugs they worked on during their agency tenures. Dr. Fishbein found it stunning that Dr. Fauci stood to personally gain significant revenues, providing HHS green-lighted Proleukin.
Contemporaneous records obtained by the AP found that some
fifty-one NIH scientists were then involved in testing products for which they
secretly receive royalties; Dr. Fauci
and his trusty longtime sidekick, Dr. H. Clifford Lane, “have received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented [interleukin-2]. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe.”
The AP story expressed understandable indignation about the
circumstances under which the government has licensed the commercial rights to
IL-2 to Chiron Corp: “Fauci’s division subsequently has spent $36 million in taxpayer
money testing the treatment on patients in one
experiment alone. Known as the ESPRIT experiment, it is one of the largest AIDS research projects in NIH history, testing IL-2 on patients at more than two hundred sites in eighteen countries over the last five years.”
On February 6, 2004, Dr. Fishbein wrote the Study Executive Committee, requesting issuance of the long-overdue updated version of the Investigator Brochure within sixty days, to include warnings of the newly discovered risks. Within days, Dr. Fishbein recalled, “I
wrote a letter to the executive committee telling them to update the brochure. From that point on, the floor came out below me.”
Even though his mandate was to enforce research policy, Dr. Fishbein had crossed the red line at NIAID. He was not just interfering with the drug-approval process: he was meddling with research in which Fauci had a peculiar interest.
Dr. Fishbein’s questioning about Dr. Fauci’s patents tripped
NIH into DEFCON 1. “All sorts of alarms went off,” recalls Dr. Fishbein. “I
came into government very naive. At the very least, I assumed that since Dr.
Fauci wanted me to make sure studies were properly done, safety came first and
that the participants were protected,” he laughed. “I was wrong.” He recounts
that he had met Dr. Fauci only once—at the interview when Dr. Fauci hired him
as NIAID’s chief ethical and regulatory compliance officer. Dr. Fishbein recalls
Dr. Fauci’s earnestness: “This is an important job. If you come across any
problems in the agency, I want to hear about them personally. I want you to
come directly to me.” Dr. Fauci told Dr. Fishbein that his “door would always
be open.” But when Dr. Fishbein asked to meet with
him about the IL-2 trials, Dr. Fauci went dark, and Dr. Fishbein felt the institution turning against him. “His guardians said he’d get back to me,” recalls Fishbein. “He didn’t.” He adds, “He basically ran away.”
In the course of his subsequent grievance procedures and
litigation over his firing, Dr. Fishbein obtained emails and other documents
that chronicled what happened behind the scenes. Dr. Fauci’s principal strategy
in discussions with his upper-level management was how to sack Dr. Fishbein
while keeping NIAID’s Director out of the splatter zone when things exploded.
On February 24, 2004, Dr. Fauci met with Kagan and Tramont to plan strategies for
ridding himself of Dr. Fishbein. The men hatched a plan by which Kagan and
Tramont would orchestrate Dr. Fishbein’s dismissal while making Dr. Fauci’s
The challenge was daunting. All the players knew that Dr.
Fauci was the only one with legal authority to fire Dr.Fishbein. NIAID human
resources officers originally told Dr. Fishbein that Dr. Fauci had authorized
his firing. Dr. Fauci later protested to various investigators from NIH and the
US Congress that he had not ordered the firing. The NIH also denied that Dr.
Fauci had ordered the firing. Dr. Fishbein calls this statement a lie: “I was a
Title 42 special
expert: paid outside the agency budget. Dr. Fauci was the only NIAID officer with authority to fire me.”
Dr. Fishbein’s reputation, his integrity, and his sterling work record presented additional obstacles. In November 2003, three months before his dismissal, Dr. Fauci presented Dr. Fishbein with a commendation for exceptional work at NIAID. Three months later, on
February 9, 2004, Dr. Tramont also recognized Dr. Fishbein’s outstanding job performance by recommending him to receive a $2,500 Service Recognition Award. Five days later, on February 13, 2004, Kagan blocked the processing of the award, canceled the $2,500 merit prize.
DAIDS officials followed these actions with an exchange of frantic emails discussing how to axe Dr. Fishbein without implicating Fauci. In a February 23, 2004, note to Kagan, Tramont said, “Jon, let’s start working on this—Tony [Fauci] will not want anything to come back on us, so we are going to have to have iron-clad documentation, no sense of harassment or unfairness and, like other personnel actions, this is going to take some work. In Clausewitzian style, we must overwhelm with ‘force.’ We will prepare our paper work, then . . . go from there.” Several of Dr. Fauci’s other trusted subordinates joined the email chain with recommendations for how to blow up Dr. Fishbein’s career while keeping Dr. Fauci’s hands clean.
Said Farber, “Jonathan Fishbein [was] tarred and feathered for pointing out that the NIH flagship study on Nevirapine was a complete disaster. Fishbein’s failure to fall into line, his failure to understand that Nevirapine was too important to fail, meant that the AIDS bureaucracy’s neutralizing antibodies had to be activated to destroy him.”
Between February 14–18, after Tramont notified Dr. Fishbein
that he was now reporting to Kagan—the same man whom he had recently cited for
disciplinary action—Dr. Fishbein exchanged emails with Tramont (then traveling
in Thailand) requesting an explanation for this odd demotion that had him
working for a lower-level employee who was a key target of his misconduct investigation.
An elusive Tramont refused to explain the decision and answered with a vague
remonstration reminiscent of Dr. Fauci’s signature obfuscating
It has not been lost on me that the most complaints [about Kagan] I heard from our constituents when I arrived revolved around [complaints filed by Dr. Fishbein’s branch] and since you have arrived, I have NOT heard a single complaint; and when I have inquired about that, the answer has been the charge brought by you.
On February 25, 2004, Kagan canned Dr. Fishbein. Kagan explained to Dr. Fishbein that he had failed in every aspect of his job and that his bosses saw no chance for improvement. Kagan advised Dr. Fishbein to leave DAIDS immediately. Dr. Fishbein opted to stay and fight his dismissal.
Dr. Fishbein first wrote to Tramont and Dr. Fauci requesting
a meeting. He never received a reply. He next appealed to Dr. Fauci’s
ostensible boss, NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, who likewise refused to meet with
him. NIH banned all employees from speaking about or to Dr.
Fishbein. “Everyone was terrified of Fauci,” says Dr. Fishbein. “He runs the agency like a vindictive dictator. Everyone is frightened of him; everyone knows that you never cross Fauci.” In Farber’s words, “Fishbein became a ‘ghost.’ Nobody addressed him in the corridors, in the elevators, in the cafeteria. ‘There was an active campaign to humiliate me,’ he recalls. ‘It was as if I had AIDS in the early days. I was like Tom Hanks in Philadelphia. Nobody would come near me.’” On February 26, 2004, Dr. Fishbein met with NIH’s
Office of Management Assessment (OMA) to complain about the actions against him. OMA also declined to investigate. On March 1, 2004, Dr. Fishbein brought his charges to the HHS Inspector General. The IG, similarly, refused to lift the carpet at NIH. Later that month, in
desperation, Dr. Fishbein moved for whistleblower protection and sought a Congressional investigation of the wide-ranging corruption at NIAID. On Capitol Hill, he at last found sympathetic ears. Dr. Fishbein told investigators for United States Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and ranking minority member, respectively, that his sacking was retribution for his reports of wrongdoing in the Nevirapine and Proleukin trials. Both senators began lamoring for HHS to investigate Dr. Fauci’s corruption charges against NIAID, and to answer the troubling questions Dr. Fishbein had raised about the homicidal studies in Tennessee and
Uganda, and sexual harassment and mismanagement in NIAID’s home office.
In a series of stern letters to NIH Director Zerhouni and his
boss, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, Senators Arlen Specter and Herb Kohl
joined Grassley and Baucus in rebuking NIH for inaction on Dr. Fishbein’s
complaints. Maryland Congressper-sons Reps. Ben Cardin, Barbara Mikulski, and
Steny Hoyer signed a similar letter. It’s illustrative of Dr. Fauci’s
overwhelming power that he and his bosses decided to ignore and defy these
After all, these three representatives were the royalty of NIH’s home state delegation.
In May 2004, under pressure from lawmakers, NIH agreed to commission an Institute of Medicine (IOM) investigation of HIVNET 012. The Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academies of Sciences, is ostensibly Congress’s independent and trustworthy advisor on scientific issues. IOM regularly assembles panels of top scientists to oversee and review agency science. The presumption is that while regulated industries easily capture and compromise federal agencies, the Institute of Medicine is incorruptible. IOM members do not work for either industry or the government. Congress expects to get the straight poop from IOM.
However, by that time, Dr. Fauci had already figured out how to control the IOM with invisible strings. The Capitol Hill lawmakers never realized that Dr. Fauci’s PIs dominated the IOM panel that assembled to investigate his wrongdoing. Six of its nine members were NIAID grant recipients then conducting their own trials for Dr. Fauci, with annual grants ranging from $120,000 to $2 million. The IOM’s study on Dr. Fishbein’s charges was predictably, therefore, yet another whitewash. The IOM panel strategically adopted an extremely narrow scope of investigation that did not include NIAID’s outrageous misconduct in Uganda or Tennessee. On April 7, 2004, the IOM panel reported its finding that the HIVNET 012 data should be considered valid.
That same day, Dr. Fishbein received a letter of termination from Tramont. Dr. Fishbein sought and received an automatic postponement of his sacking as he argued his whistleblower case before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tramont’s action, in the middle of a congressional investigation, was a naked gesture of defiance toward NIH’s congressional overlords from both political parties. It signaled HHS’s resolution to protect Dr. Fauci at any cost and to muzzle criticism by his principal detractor.
Teflon Tony had come a long way since 1987, when his public
blistering by Congress had left him remorseful and terrified for his future. By
2004, he had the protection of
his boss, a powerful Republican president, who—thanks to Dr. Fauci—was also implicated in the corrupt HIVNET trials and who cared little for the distempers of a Democrat-controlled Congress. Frustrated and angry at Dr. Fauci’s insubordination, Grassley and Baucus fired off a letter dated June 30 to NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, demanding an explanation for Dr. Fishbein’s firing and accusing NIAID of retaliating against Dr. Fishbein to silence his corruption charges against NIAID. The letter noted that retaliation against an employee for reporting misconduct is “unacceptable, illegal, and violates the Whistleblower Protection Act.”
Meanwhile, a secret internal NIH review of the Nevirapine
trials was confirming Dr. Fishbein’s worst accusations about Dr. Fauci and
HIVNET. On August 9, 2004, Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, senior advisor to Zerhouni,
sent the NIH director the results of her investigation.
Kirschstein warned that Dr. Fauci’s efforts to fire Fishbein at the very least gave the “appearance of reprisal.” Kirschstein added that “It is clear that [Dr. Fauci’s AIDS Branch] is a troubled organization” and that Dr. Fishbein’s complaint “is clearly a sketch of a deeper issue.” Zerhouni kept quiet about these damning results from the agency’s internal investigations. Defying the Senate, he fired Dr. Fishbein on July 4, 2005.
Following his dismissal, Dr. Fishbein brought his case before the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting protection from any official retaliation under federal whistleblower laws. The MSPB reinstated Dr. Fishbein after determining his firing was “wrongful retribution.” It was clear, however, that Dr. Fishbein had no future at NIH. He negotiated a termination deal. The terms of Dr. Fishbein’s settlement agreement with NIAID are secret, and the deal forbids him from discussing its particulars.
Dr. Fishbein told me that despite his nominal victory, Dr. Fauci
continued to punish him from afar with reverberations reaching far beyond
NIAID. “I couldn’t get a job in public health for five years,” Dr. Fishbein
says of Dr. Fauci’s vendetta. “Everyone in science is terrified of
crossing him. He’s like a mafia kingpin. He controls everything and everyone in public health.” Dr. Fishbein added, “He spreads so much money around and everyone knows he is vindictive. I had one friend tell me, ‘I can’t risk hiring you because I can’t afford to anger Fauci.’” Says Dr. Fishbein, “This was my first exposure to the cancel culture.”
He further reminisced: “I left the private sector and took the
NIH job because I wanted to do public service. But I was very naive. I believed
the government could find solutions, and that justice always prevailed. My
experience at the Division of AIDS really opened my eyes about how the system
really operated. The federal budget is a big trough to feed special interest
groups. But if you become wise to it, open your mouth, and get on the wrong
someone really powerful, they are out for blood. The government lawyers up, and they have unlimited resources to burn you. Truth may not be on their side, but they can throw every obstacle in your way to getting a fair hearing of your grievance. And you can’t get justice because litigation will drain you to your last penny. The system isn’t designed to help the aggrieved party. I couldn’t coerce Fauci for a deposition. He was too busy doing interviews
and accepting awards. There were never any consequences for the perpetrators. They continued merrily in their careers. I had to start all over again. If they are determined
to ruin your life, they can do it.”
Farber is also disenchanted. “They unleash such violence over
your whole existence if you cross them. You never walk the same again. They
make you feel like you are a dead person, totally devalued. They put a lot of
money into these attack campaigns over my article. They went nuclear. Their
crusade to discredit and destroy me had lasting impacts on my life. But you
know what? I didn’t get murdered. Joyce [Hafford] did. I think of her all the
“And the real losers in that battle,” added Farber, “were the millions of African women and babies forced to take Nevirapine, a drug that does not prevent AIDS but sickens and kills people who take it.” In the end, Dr. Fauci succeeded in rigging corrupt clinical trials, concealing catastrophic cheating, and deftly manipulating the politics to bring his dangerous and inefficacious drug, Nevirapine, to market.
In March 2005, Dr. Valendar Turner, a surgeon at the Department of Health in Perth, Australia, pointed out in a letter to Nature: “None of the available evidence for Nevirapine comes from a trial in which it was tested against a placebo. Yet, as the study’s senior author has said, a placebo is the only way a scientist can assess a drug’s effectiveness with scientific certainty.”
Dr. Turner observed that the transmission rate that HIVNET 012 reported for HIV—13.1 percent—was above the background transmission rate. “The HIVNET 012 outcome is higher than the 12 percent transmission rate reported in a prospective study of 561 African women given no antiretroviral treatment. This, in effect, is the placebo group.” If anything, then, Dr. Fauci’s pet drug has aggravated rather than prevented transmission in all those African babies he was pretending to save. Farber argues that, under Dr. Fauci’s leadership, the failure of researchers to properly control with a placebo group “is perhaps the outstanding characteristic of AIDS research in general.” The statistical gimmick of getting rid of the inert placebo control group would become a tool wielded by Dr. Fauci to gain approvals for hundreds of new drugs and vaccines, from AIDS to COVID.
According to Farber, “As it was, there was no placebo group, so HIVNET’s results are a statistical trick, a shadow play, in which success is measured against another drug and not against an inert placebo—the gold standard of clinical trials.”
The single beneficial outcome of Dr. Fishbein’s ordeal was
that Congressional and press questions about Dr. Fauci’s personal financial
stakes in the IL-2 drug forced Dr. Fauci to pledge to donate his royalties from
the scheme to charity. HHS thereafter changed its royalty policies—a little —limiting
royalty payments to contract employees to $150,000 per year, per employee, per
patent. In the thirty years since, no member of the media has ever asked Dr.
Fauci how much money he made on IL-2, or to which charity, if any, he directed his donations. Nor has Dr. Fauci ever disclosed the extent of his personal stakes or the
financial returns from his patents on other NIAID drugs, or the royalty amounts he has rewarded to loyal cronies and underlings at NIAID for the thousands of other new drugs
the agency has developed.
Finally, during all of Dr. Fauci’s tenure at NIH, Dr. Zeke Emmanuel
was director of the Department of Bioethics (DOB), the ethical oversight board
for all of NIH. Emmanuel’s deputy was Tony Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady. In
2012, Grady took over as director of DOB. That department oversees bioethics at
clinical trials for all NIH subagencies, including responsibilities for
overseeing ethical issues in clinical trials commissioned by her
husband, like those for Nevirapine and Proleukin.
Grady acknowledged in an interview with Vogue that she was
aware of Tony Fauci’s reputation as a very scary person, upon their first
meeting in 1983. “Everyone was
afraid of [him]. And when I first saw [him] I thought, ‘What are they talking about?’ He’s young, he’s handsome, and doesn’t seem that scary.”
“Dealing with Tony Fauci is like dealing with organized crime,” says Dr. Fishbein. “He’s like the godfather. He has connections everywhere. He’s always got people that he’s giving money to in powerful positions to make sure he gets his way—that he gets what he wants. These connections give him the ultimate power to fix everything, control every narrative, escape all consequence, and sweep all the dirt and all the bodies under the carpet and to terrorize and destroy anyone who crosses him.”(pp.268-275)
Chapter 9: The White Man’s Burden…278
Take up the White Man’s burden—
The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease.
—Rudyard Kipling, “The White Man’s Burden” 1897
In 1984, following Dr. Robert Gallo’s
notorious press conference, Dr. Fauci promised the world an AIDS vaccine forthwith.
Delivering a functioning AIDS immunization would, of course, be the most
persuasive debunking of the Duesbergians and other critics of the
HIV/AIDS hypothesis. “Finally,” Dr. Fauci assured the global press, “given the fact that we now have the virus in our hands, it is quite possible, in fact, it’s inevitable that we will develop a vaccine for AIDS.”1 Margaret Heckler told the media scrum, “We hope to have . . . a vaccine ready for testing in about two years.”2 Heckler was off the mark by a third of a century and counting. In the intervening decades, the federal government spent well over half of a trillion dollars on AIDS. Dr. Fauci has dedicated much of that moolah to his quest for an elusive vaccine to immunize people against HIV. Dr. Fauci pumped our money into nearly 100 vaccine candidates, with none of these coming even close to the finish line. All these disappointments never darkened Dr. Fauci’s buoyant optimism that he will soon collar that retreating horizon.
For a decade, Oklahoma’s US Senator Tom
Coburn, MD, occupied front-row seats in Congressional and Senate Health
Committees during Dr. Fauci’s annual gallivants to
Capitol Hill. By 2010, Coburn had wearied at the NIAID director’s bootless promises of the imminent delivery of his quixotic jab. When, on May 18, Dr. Fauci returned to the Senate hearing room to tout “significant progress in HIV vaccine research,” the normally taciturn Dr. Coburn finally exploded. He lambasted Dr. Fauci for deliberately deceiving lawmakers and accused his fellow physician of hoodwinking Congress into approving appropriations with
no purpose beyond sustaining his bureaucracy: “Most scientists involved in AIDS research believe that an HIV vaccine is further away than ever.”
It had taken years of Dr. Fauci’s ritualistic pilgrimages for Coburn to recognize, with indignant clarity, that attempted HIV vaccines are an ATM for NIH, whether they work or not. From an institutional standpoint, none of Dr. Fauci’s failed experiments were, after all, failures. They each resulted in massive transfers of public lucre to Dr. Fauci’s Pharma partners, and sustaining funding for NIAID’s laboratories and PIs. The only true failure at NIAID would be a shrinking workforce.
This verity remains utterly obscure to the dewy-eyed press, which faithfully applauds each of Dr. Fauci’s Groundhog Day encores. In 2019, nearly a decade after Coburn’s remonstrance, and only a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci made a surprise announcement: he finally had a working HIV vaccine. While the inoculation had demonstrated a bare-bones 30 percent efficacy in human trials in Thailand, data from the Phase III trial in South Africa looked promising, and NIAID was getting teed up to test the vaccine on Americans.4 Dr. Fauci added some deflating caveats: While his new vaccine didn’t prevent transmission of AIDS, the nimble technocrat jauntily predicted that intrepid souls who took the jab would find that when they did get AIDS, the symptoms would seem to be much reduced. So confident was Dr. Fauci of the media’s slavish credulity that he assumed, correctly, that he’d never need to answer the many questions raised by this feverish gibberish. That entire odd proposition received zero critical press commentary. His success at slapping lipstick on this donkey and selling it to the world as a Thoroughbred may have emboldened his ruse—a year later—of placing similar cosmetics on the COVID vaccines that, likewise, neither prevent disease nor preclude transmission.
A PARADE OF HORRIBLES.
The thirty-year decampment of journalistic scrutiny means that there is still no coherent public narrative chronicling Dr. Fauci’s futile quest for his “inevitable” AIDS vaccine,
much less accountability. Industry and government scientists have instead shrouded the scandalous saga in secrecy, subterfuge, and prevarication, obscuring a thousand calamities and a sea of tears deserving its own book. Every meager effort to research the debacle—on
Google, PubMed, news sites, and published clinical trial data—yields only shocking new atrocities—a grim, repetitive parade of horribles: heartbreaking tragedies, entrenched institutional arrogance and racism, broken promises, vast expenditures of squandered treasure, and the recurring chicanery of Anthony Fauci, Bob Gallo, and Bill Gates. It’s a darker version of Groundhog Day, devoid of humor, irony, wisdom, or redemption. It will be an easier read if I touch on only a few random lowlights of the painful saga.
In 1991, as part of a settlement ending years of litigation, Bob Gallo finally admitted that he had stolen the HIV virus from Montagnier. He was hardly chastened. On April 14, John Crewdson reported, in the Chicago Tribune, that one of Gallo’s experiments with an HIV vaccine had killed three AIDS patients in Paris the previous year.5 NIH had launched the project before handing it off to Gallo and his trusty henchman, Daniel Zagury, who tested the concoction on volunteers in France and, predictably, an African country, this time Zaire. His cronies at the National Cancer Institute had granted Gallo’s experiments “expedited review, approval.” How expedited? Just twenty-five days.The patients died after Gallo’s team inoculated them with an HIV vaccine derived from cowpox. NIH scientists formulated the preparation from vaccinia—a virus that causes cowpox in bovines—into which the government scientists genetically inserted a fragment of the HIV virus. Apparently, the cowpox remained infectious, and three of their nineteen Paris volunteers immediately developed “vaccinia,” a frequently fatal necrosis, which caused acute lesions and an expanse of hardened, swollen, purplish-red skin around the victims’ injection sites as the disease
devoured their flesh.
As is typical of AIDS vaccine research, the NIH scientists cached the atrocity. Neither Gallo nor Zagury reported the deaths. Instead, Gallo vaunted the trial as a great success in the Lancet’s July 21, 1990, edition, audaciously claiming that there had been “no deaths” and “no complications or discomfort” among any of those to whom he administered the preparation.
One of Dr. Gallo’s casualties was a
forty-two-year-old classic literature professor—regarded as a brilliant Egyptologist—who
succumbed March 5, 1990, more than four months before Gallo’s article appeared.
A second volunteer, a thirty-six-year-old Paris University librarian,
died on July 6, weeks before Gallo published his article. Friends described Gallo’s two victims as healthy and vibrant in the days and weeks immediately preceding their deaths. “It was unimaginable,” a co-worker said of the robust professor, “that he could have died six weeks later.”
A longtime friend of Dr. Gallo’s third victim,
who died on October 1, 1990, asked Zagury’s principal assistant, Dr. Odile
Picard, whether the experimental vaccine may have caused the destructive
lesions that the coroner detected on the victim’s brain during autopsy. Picard
assured him the vaccines were not at fault, adding, “We don’t know what this
is.” A month after this conversation, Picard delivered another paper, also signed
by Gallo and Zagury, at an
international AIDS meeting in Paris, the Colloque des Cent Gardes. Here again Picard mentioned nothing about the three deaths, telling her colleagues that the vaccinia preparation had shown itself “safe in patients.” Perhaps she meant safe for those patients who survived.
André Boué, the distinguished French
geneticist and secretary to France’s National Committee on Medical Ethics, who
approved the vaccine trials in 1987, complained that Gallo never informed his
panel that any of the subjects had died. Officials of Assistance Publique, the municipal
hospital system in Paris, grumbled that Gallo’s team also neglected to tell
them of the three fatalities. French officials only learned of the deaths from
who became suspicious at hospitals where Gallo’s team had shipped their ailing recruits to die.
NIH managers also protested that Gallo had not come clean about the deaths. One unctionary called Gallo’s omission “very troubling.” NIH records show that neither Gallo nor any of his NIH confederates informed the Office of Protection from Research Risks about the body count. Federal law requires that OPRR approve human experimentation and that researchers report adverse events, including, of course, the most adverse event. In February, citing multiple violations of federal regulations by Gallo and his team on both sides of the Atlantic, the OPRR abruptly halted the experiment.
Channeling his mentor’s hallmark chutzpah,
Zagury, after submitting the chipper Lancet article, applied for a patent on
the deadly vaccine technology called “Methods of
Inducing Immune Responses to the AIDS Virus,” with Zagury listing himself as an “inventor” in the application.
Once again, the omertà held. There was no investigation, no accountability, and no word of what sort of injuries the volunteers in the Zaire arm of the study may have suffered. Characteristically, Gallo was unembarrassed, unbowed, and undaunted by this latest setback. The bought-and-bullied virology community stayed silent about a scandal that would have implicated NIH and provoked unwanted scrutiny of the HIV orthodoxies.
Five years later, Gallo left NCI and established the Institute for Human Virology (IHV) with his two longtime cronies, William Blattner, who served for 22 years under Gallo as Director of Viral Epidemiology at NCI, and Robert Redfield, a military doctor and researcher who shared Gallo’s lifelong obsession with HIV and his ethical lacunae.
Dr. Robert Redfield.
Many Americans will recognize Redfield as Donald Trump’s CDC Director during the 2020 COVID pandemic. Dr.Redfield and his faithful sidekick, Dr. Deborah Birx, served with Dr. Fauci on Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force.
Both Redfield and Birx were former Army medical officers who, in the 1980s and 1990s, led the military’s AIDS research, a specialty that seems like a magnet for hucksters and quacks.
US military documents12 show that in 1992 Redfield and Birx, his then-assistant—both serving at Walter Reed in Washington—published inaccurate data in the New England Journal of Medicine, claiming that an HIV vaccine they helped develop and tested on Walter Reed patients was effective. They both must have known the vaccine was worthless.
In 1992, an Air Force medical office accused Redfield of engaging in “a systematic pattern of data manipulation, inappropriate statistical analyses and misleading data presentation in an apparent attempt to promote the usefulness of the GP160 AIDS vaccine.” A specially convened Air Force tribunal on scientific fraud and misconduct concluded that Redfield’s “misleading or, possibly, deceptive” information “seriously threatens his credibility as a researcher and has the potential to negatively impact AIDS research funding for military institutions as a whole. His allegedly unethical behavior creates false hope and could result in premature deployment of the vaccine.” The tribunal recommended investigation by a “fully independent outside investigative body.” Under threat of court-martial, loss of his medical license, and possible imprisonment, Dr. Redfield confessed to angry DOD interrogators and to the tribunal that his analyses were faulty and deceptive. He agreed to correct them and to publicly admit the vaccine was worthless at an upcoming AIDS conference at which he was scheduled to speak in July 1992. Perhaps it was the grandeur of the hall, the microphone, and the audience that conspired to weaken his resolve. Instead of retracting his falsehood, he boldly repeated his fraudulent claims at this and two subsequent international HIV conferences. As astonished prosecutors watched, he then brazenly parroted his debunked perjuries in testimony before Congress, swearing that his vaccine cured HIV.
Redfield’s bold gambit worked. Bamboozled by Redfield’s brazen ballyhoo, Congress immediately appropriated $20 million to the military to support Redfield and Birx’s research project. Enraged military prosecutors wanted to court-martial Redfield. But as Public Citizen complained in a 1994 letter to the Congressional Committee’s Chairman, Henry Waxman, the dedicated budget hikes promised by Congress prompted the Army to kill the investigation, silence its own prosecutors, and “whitewash” Redfield’s misdeeds.
By snatching triumph from the jaws of career-ending disaster,
Redfield had pulled off the perfect crime. The bold flimflam catapulted Birx
and Redfield into their stellar careers as top federal health officials.
Whatever other lessons he learned from the episode, recklessness and
mendacity continued to be Redfield’s go-to strategies. Gallo’s partnership with Redfield became a gold mine for both men. Dr. Gallo told me in a May 11, 2021, email that the Institute of Human Virology’s (IHV) annual budget is in excess of $100 million: “A majority of this funding is from PEPFAR.” President George W. Bush created PEPFAR in 2003, at Dr. Fauci’s urging, to coordinate AIDS assistance from all the various federal government, civilian, and military sources. Since 2014, PEPFAR’s administrator has been Deborah Birx, who simultaneously served on the board of the Bill Gates–backed Global Fund.
In 2017, the IHV’s Annual Report boasted that these two quacksalvers had won over $600 million in grants—much of it from NIH and Bill Gates—since they cemented their lucrative partnership. They seem to have spent the bulk of that loot experimenting with failed HIV drugs and vaccines on Black people, including 20,000 residents of Washington and Baltimore and 1.3 million misfortunates from Africa and the Caribbean.
Gallo and Redfield’s IHV partnership was a good bet. They had an academic affiliation with the University of Maryland, their own nonprofit to launder grant money from their old NIH, NIAID, and NCI cronies, and a for-profit spinoff that would allow them to monetize their taxpayer-funded discoveries. Their former accomplices at NIH were pumping $200 million annually into the HIV vaccine boondoggle.22 Moreover, Redfield had an inside track through Birx and through his military confederates to the vast Pentagon budgets for bioweapons and infectious disease. Those connections yielded plenty of federal dough to keep everyone in the chips. Furthermore, in 1998 a new HIV funder appeared—one with deep pockets and a shared obsession with vaccines.
That year, the William H. Gates Foundation announced a nine-year, $500 million plan to fund AIDS vaccine development through Gates’s International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI)—the predecessor organization to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI). IAVI’s president, Seth Berkley—Gates’s faithful and extravagantly compensated24 minion—said the plan would fund multiple efficacy trials of AIDS vaccine candidates in developing countries. If any of the vaccines worked even reasonably well on sub-Saharan Africans, they could then presumably be tested in Western countries.
Despite Redfield’s well-publicized history as a charlatan and pretender, President Donald Trump put him in charge of the CDC at a time when the agency’s overarching mission was promoting COVID vaccines. Trump also elevated Birx, a lifelong protégée to both Redfield and Anthony Fauci and confidante to Bill Gates. These three vaccine mountebanks—Redfield, Birx, and Fauci—led the White House coronavirus task force and steered America’s COVID response during the first year of the pandemic.
The trio—none of whom ever treated a COVID patient—adopted controversial strategies to confine the nation under house arrest, shut down the global economy, deny the public access to early treatment and lifesaving therapeutics like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, excite persistent public terror through the broadcasts of deliberately exaggerated death and case counts, and repeatedly tell the world that “the only path back to normal is a miraculous vaccine.” With minimal scientific support, they imposed draconian quarantine, mask, and social-distancing mandates, purposefully or accidentally inducing a species of mass psychosis called “Stockholm syndrome” wherein hostages become grateful to their captors convinced that the only path to survival is unquestioning obedience.
The Gates/Fauci Bromance.
Two years after Gates announced IAVI, he summoned Dr. Fauci to Seattle to propose a partnership that, two decades later, would have profound impacts on humanity. Dr. Fauci
first met Bill and Melinda Gates during that Seattle trip. Ostensibly for a conversation about combating tuberculosis, the Microsoft billionaire had invited the NIAID chief to a muster of global health honchos at his 40,000-square-foot, $127 million mansion rising from forty wooded acres on the banks of Lake Washington. After dinner, Gates culled Fauci from the herd and corralled him into his spectacular blue-domed library overlooking the lake. Fauci remembered: “Melinda was showing everyone on a tour of the house. And he said, ‘Can I have some time with you in my library,’ this amazingly beautiful library. . . . And we sat down. And it was there that he said, ‘Tony, you run the biggest infectious disease institute of the world. And I want to be sure the money I spend is well spent. Why don’t we really get to know each other? Why don’t we be partners?’”
Over the next two decades, that partnership
would metastasize to include pharmaceutical companies, military and
intelligence planners, and international health agencies all collaborating to
promote weaponized pandemics and vaccines and a new brand of corporate
imperialism rooted in the ideology of biosecurity. That project would yield Mr. Gates and Dr. Fauci unprecedented bonanzas in wealth and power and have catastrophic consequences for democracy and humanity.
The Microsoft Monopoly
Influence peddling fueled Bill Gates’s drive to power from the outset. Gates came from a wealthy family; his great-grandfather made a fortune in banking and left Bill a trust fund worth millions in today’s dollars. After dropping out of Harvard in 1975, Gates leveraged his passion for software engineering to launch Microsoft in an era when most Americans still used typewriters. At the time, his mother, Mary Gates, a prominent Seattle businesswoman, sat on the United Way board alongside then-IBM chairman John Opel. In 1980, IBM was looking to recruit a software concern to develop an operating system for its personal computer. Mary Gates persuaded Opel to take a chance on her son. That intervention propelled Gates’s fledgling firm into the big leagues and made Gates a billionaire within
Gates’s closest boyhood friend and the
Microsoft cofounder, Paul Allen, described Gates in his 2011 book (Idea Man: A
Memoir) as a sarcastic bully who in 1982 schemed to oust him and steal his
share of their company. Back at work following a bout with cancer, an anemic
Allen, depleted by radiation and chemotherapy, overheard Gates conniving with
Microsoft’s new manager, Steve Ballmer, to dilute Allen’s stake. Allen recalled
bursting in and shouting:
“This is unbelievable! It shows your true character, once and for all.” Declining Gates’s $5-a-share buyout offer, Allen left Microsoft with his 25 percent stake intact, becoming a billionaire when the company went public in 1986.
In May 1998, the Department of Justice and twenty state attorneys general filed antitrust charges against Microsoft, accusing Gates’s company of illegally thwarting efforts by consumers to install competing software on its Windows-based computers. The DOJ asked the federal trial court in Seattle to fine Gates a record million dollars a day for antitrust violations. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft had violated the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act prohibitions outlawing monopolies and cartels, saying, “Microsoft placed an oppressive thumb on the scale of competitive fortune, thereby effectively guaranteeing its continued dominance in the relevant market.”
Judge Jackson ordered Microsoft to divide
itself in halves and divest either its operating system or its software arm. An
appeals court overturned that decision. In a settlement, the DOJ abandoned its
drive to break up the company, and Microsoft agreed to pay an anemic $800,000 fine
and to share computing interfaces with competing firms. Aside from the
financial cost, the litigation had blighted Gates’s reputation. Judge Jackson
complained that Gates’s testimony was “evasive and forgetful” and observed that
“[He] has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that
derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no
reverses.” The public had seen enough of the trial—and of Gates’s revealing
depositions—to share Judge Jackson’s revulsion. An online group called SPOGGE gained
widespread popularity. The acronym stands for “Society for Preventing Gates
from Getting Everything.” Class action lawsuits filed in 2000 against the
company for gross discrimination against African American workers and for
including racially charged messages in its software further blighted Gates’s
pockmarked public image.
Legendary plaintiffs’ lawyer Willie Gary complained that Microsoft had “a ‘plantation mentality’ when it comes to treating African-American workers”34 and observed that
“there are glass ceilings and walls for African-American workers at Microsoft.” Gary settled the case for $97 million.36 Two years later, European regulators levied a $1.36 billion fine against Microsoft, the highest penalty in EU history.
Gates reacted to snowballing popular disgust by lobbying Congress to slash the Justice Department’s budget and by hiring an army of PR firms to soften his image as a ruthless and duplicitous king-baby robber baron. As part of a concerted offensive to recast his public persona, Gates and his wife formed a charity, the Children’s Vaccine Program, with an impressive $100 million donation.
The Rockefeller-Gates Nexus.
A century earlier, America’s first billionaire, John D. Rockefeller, had blazed his own wildly successful exit ramp from public loathing, bad press, and antitrust prosecution by launching a medical philanthropy. John D. Rockefeller’s consigliere, Frederick Taylor Gates, served as John D.’s chief business confidant and philanthropic adviser. Frederick Gates helped Rockefeller structure his foundation, advising the mogul that “judicious disposal of his fortune might also blunt further inquiry into its origins.”
Practically from his nativity, Bill Gates
began coordinating his own foundations’ giving with the Rockefeller
organization. In 2018, Bill Gates made the salient observation that “Everywhere
our foundation went, we discovered the Rockefeller Foundation had been there
At the twentieth century’s dawn, Rockefeller’s
sanguinary maneuvering—including bribery, price-fixing, corporate espionage,
and creating shell companies to conduct illegal activities—had won his Standard
Oil Company control of 90 percent of US oil production and made him the richest
man in world history with a net worth of over half a trillion in today’s
dollars. Senator Robert Lafayette excoriated Rockefeller as “the greatest
criminal of the age.”39 The oil magnate’s father, William “Devil Bill” Rockefeller,
was a marauding con artist who supported his family by posing as a doctor and
hawking snake oil, opium elixirs, patent medicines, and other miracle cures.40 In the early 1900s, as scientists discovered pharmaceutical
uses for refinery by-products, John D. saw an opportunity to capitalize on the
family’s medical pedigree. At that time, nearly half the physicians and medical
colleges in the
United States practiced holistic or herbal medicine. Rockefeller and his friend Andrew Carnegie, the Big Steel robber baron, dispatched educator Abraham Flexner on a cross-country tour to catalog the status of America’s 155 medical colleges and hospitals.
The Rockefeller Foundation’s 1910 Flexner Report recommended centralizing America’s medical schooling, abolishing miasma theory, and reorienting these institutions according to “germ theory”—which held that germs alone caused disease— and the pharmaceutical paradigm that emphasized targeting particular germs with specific drugs rather than fortifying the immune system through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition. With that narrative in hand, Rockefeller financed the campaign to consolidate mainstream medicine, co-opt the burgeoning pharmaceutical industry, and shutter its competition. Rockefeller’s crusade caused the closure of more than half of American medical schools; fostered public and press scorn for homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, nutritional, holistic, functional, integrative, and natural medicines; and led to the incarceration of many practicing physicians.
Miasma vs. Germ Theory.
“Miasma theory” emphasizes preventing disease by fortifying the immune system through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses. Miasma exponents posit that disease occurs where a weakened immune system provides germs an enfeebled
target to exploit. They analogize the human immune system to the skin of an apple; with the skin intact, the fruit will last a week at room temperature and a month if refrigerated. But even a small injury to the skin triggers systemic rot within hours as the billions of opportunistic microbes—thronging on the skin of every living organism—colonize the injured terrain.
Germ theory aficionados, in contrast, blame
disease on microscopic pathogens. Their approach to health is to identify the
culpable germ and tailor a poison to kill it. Miasmists complain that those
patented poisons may themselves further weaken the immune system, or simply open
the damaged terrain to a competitive germ or cause chronic disease. They point
out that the world is teeming with microbes—many of them beneficial—and nearly
them harmless to a healthy, well-nourished immune system. Miasmists argue that alnutrition and inadequate access to clean water are the ultimate stressors that make infectious diseases lethal in impoverished locales. When a starving African child succumbs to measles, the miasmist attributes the death to malnutrition; germ theory proponents (a.k.a. virologists) blame the virus. The miasmist approach to public health is to boost individual immune response.
For better or worse, the champions of germ
theory, Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, proved victorious in their fierce
decades-long battle with their miasmist rival Antoine Béchamp. Pulitzer
Prize–winning historian Will Durant suggests that germ theory found popular
purchase by mimicking the traditional explanation for disease— demon possession—giving
it a leg up over miasma. The ubiquity of pasteurization and vaccinations are
only two of the many indicators of the domineering ascendancy of germ theory as
the cornerstone of contemporary public health policy. A $1 trillion
pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions, and
poisons and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology led by “Little
Napoleon” himself, Anthony Fauci, fortifies the century-old
predominance of germ theory. And so with the microbe theory, the “cornerstone was laid for modern biomedicine’s basic formula with its monocausal-microbial starting-point and its search for magic bullets: one disease, one cause, one cure,” writes American sociology professor Steven Epstein.
As Dr. Claus Köhnlein and Torsten Engelbrecht
observe in Virus Mania, “The idea that certain microbes—above all fungi,
bacteria, and viruses—are our great opponents in
battle, causing certain diseases that must be fought with special chemical bombs, has buried itself deep into the collective conscience.”
Imperialist ideologues find natural affinity
with germ theory. A “War on Germs” rationalizes a militarized approach to
public health and endless intervention in poor nations that bear heavy disease
burdens. And just as the military-industrial complex prospers in war, the
pharmaceutical cartel profits most from sick and malnourished populations.
On his deathbed, the victorious Pasteur is said to have recanted, “Béchamp was right,” declaring, “the microbe is nothing. The terrain is everything.”44 Miasma theory survives in marginalized, yet vibrant, pockets among integrative and functional medicine practitioners. And burgeoning science documenting the critical role of the microbiome in human health and immunity tends to vindicate Béchamp, and particularly his teachings that microorganisms are beneficial to good health. Köhnlein and Engelbrecht observe that:
[But] even for mainstream medicine, it is
clear that the biological terrain of our intestines—the intestinal flora,
teeming with bacteria [or weighing up to 1 kg in a normal adult
human, totaling 100
trillion cells.] is accorded a decisive role,
because it is by far the body’s biggest and most important immune
A doctrinal canon of the germ theory credits
vaccines for the dramatic declines of infectious disease mortalities in North
America and Europe during the twentieth century. Anthony Fauci, for example,
routinely proclaims that vaccines eliminated mortalities from the infectious
diseases of the early twentieth century, saving millions of lives. On July 4,
2021, he commented to NBC’s Chuck Todd, “You know, as the director of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, it was my responsibility
to make sure that we did the science that got us to the vaccines that as we
know now have already saved millions and millions of
lives.”46 Most Americans accept this claim as dogma. It will therefore come as a surprise to learn that it is simply untrue. Science actually gives the honor of having vanquished infectious disease mortalities to nutrition and sanitation. A comprehensive study of this foundational assertion published in 2000 in the high-gravitas journal Pediatrics by CDC and Johns Hopkins scientists concluded, after reviewing a century of medical data, that “vaccination does not account for the impressive decline in mortality from infectious diseases . . . in the 20th century.” As noted earlier, another widely cited study, McKinlay and
McKinlay—required reading in virtually every American medical school during the 1970s—found that all medical interventions including vaccines, surgeries, and antibiotics accounted for less than about 1 percent—and no more than 3.5 percent—of the dramatic mortality declines. The McKinlays presciently warned that profiteers among the medical establishment would seek to claim credit for the mortality declines for vaccines in order to justify government mandates for those pharmaceutical products.
Seven years earlier, the world’s foremost
virologist, Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Edward H. Kass, a founding member and
first president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and founding
editor of the Journal of Infectious Diseases, rebuked his virology
trying to take credit for that dramatic decline, scolding them for allowing the proliferation of “half-truths . . . that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past—tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc.—and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy.” Kass recognized that the real heroes of public health were not the medical profession, but rather
the engineers who brought us sewage treatment plants, railroads, roads, and highways for transporting food, electric refrigerators, and chlorinated water.
The illustrations on the following page pose an indomitable challenge to germ theory’s central dogma and stark support for miasma’s approach to medicine. These graphs demonstrate that mortalities for virtually all the great killer diseases, infectious and otherwise, declined with advances in nutrition and sanitation. The most dramatic declines occurred prior to vaccine introduction.
Note the mortality declines occurred in both infectious and noninfectious diseases, irrespective of the availability of vaccines.
“When the tide is receding from the
beach it is easy to have the
illusion that one can empty the ocean by removing the water with a
As Drs. Engelbrecht and Köhnlein observe:
Epidemics rarely occur in affluent
societies, because these societies
offer conditions (sufficient nutrition, clean drinking water, etc.)
which allow many people to keep their immune systems so fit that
microbes simply do not have a chance to multiply abnormally.
. . .
As a final side note, it seems to me that a mutually respectful science-based, evidence-based marriage incorporating the best of these two clashing dogmas would best serve public health and humankind.
Fauci and Gates; Germ Theory as Foreign Policy
The arcane conflict between germ and miasma theorists has important resonance for public health policy in the developing world, where many policy advocates fiercely protest that a dollar spent on food and clean water is far more effective than a dollar spent on vaccines. As we shall see, the Gates/Fauci militarized approach to medicine has precipitated an apocalyptic battle on the African and Asian continents between the two philosophies in a zero-sum game that pits nutrition and sanitation against vaccines in a life-and-death conflict for resources and legitimacy. The historic clash between these warring philosophies offers a
useful framework for understanding Bill Gates’s and Anthony Fauci’s approach to public health. In order to assess the effectiveness of their mass-vaccination projects, we would need a disciplined accounting that compares health outcomes in vaccinated populations to similarly situated unvaccinated cohorts. This is the kind of accounting that neither of these men has been willing to provide. The facts suggest that it is the absence of such reliable metrics and science-based analysis that allows Gates and Fauci to get away with their dubious claims about the efficacy and safety of their prescriptions. Any even-handed examination of the role of immunizations in Africa must acknowledge that mass-vaccination programs
may serve a larger agenda in which the priorities of power, wealth, and control can eclipse quaint preoccupations with public health. And, once again, it was the Rockefeller Foundation that pioneered germ theory as a foreign policy tool.
The Triumph of Germ Theory
In 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that Standard Oil constituted an “unreasonable monopoly” and splintered the behemoth into thirty-four companies that became Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, Marathon, and others. Ironically, the breakup increased rather than diminished Rockefeller’s personal wealth. Rockefeller donated an additional $100 million from that windfall to his philanthropic front group, the General Education Board, to cement the streamlining and homogenization of medical schools and hospitals. In accordance with the pharmaceutical paradigm, he simultaneously provided large grants to scientists for identifying the active chemicals in disease-curing plants utilized by the traditional doctors whom he had extirpated. Rockefeller chemists then synthesized and patented petrochemical versions of those molecules. The foundation’s philosophy of “a pill for an ill” shaped how
Americans came to view health care.
In 1913, the patriarch founded the American Cancer Society and incorporated the Rockefeller Foundation. Philanthropic foundations were an innovation of the era, and detractors criticized, as “tax evasion,” Rockefeller’s scheme to take a $56 million deduction on his donation of 72,569 shares of Standard Oil to launch a foundation that would give him perpetual control of that “donated” wealth. A congressional investigation described the foundation as a self-serving artifice posing “a menace to the future political and economic welfare of the nation.” Congress repeatedly denied Rockefeller a charter. Attorney General George Wickersham denounced the foundation as a “scheme for perpetuating vast wealth” and “entirely inconsistent with the public interest.”
To reassure public, politicians, and press of its benign purposes, the Rockefeller Foundation declared its ambition to eliminate hookworm, malaria, and yellow fever. The Rockefeller Sanitary Commission for the Eradication of Hookworm Disease sent teams of doctors, inspectors, and lab technicians to administer deworming medication across eleven Southern states.55 These ambassadors systematically exaggerated the medication’s efficacy, glossed over its regular fatalities, and—through the graces of Rockefeller’s mercenary army of journalists for hire—ignited enough favorable popular interest for the Foundation to justify the proposed expansion into the colonized world.
The Rockefeller Foundation launched a “public-private partnership”
with pharmaceutical companies called the International Health Commission, which
set about feverishly inoculating the hapless populations of the colonized
tropics with a yellow fever jab. The vaccine killed its beneficiaries in droves
and failed to prevent yellow fever. The Rockefeller Foundation quietly dropped the
useless vaccine after the foundation’s star researcher, the yellow fever
vaccine’s inventor, Hideyo Noguchi, succumbed to the disease, likely contracted
through careless laboratory exposure. Noguchi’s flexible scruples had greased
his dicey experimentation on colonized “volunteers” and fueled his meteoric
rise in the ethically barren landscapes of virology. At the time of his death,
the New York district attorney was investigating Noguchi for illegally
experimenting on New York City orphans with
syphilis vaccines without the consent of their legal guardians.
Despite such setbacks, the Rockefeller Foundation’s yellow
fever project caught the approbatory attention of army planners on the lookout
for remedies against the tropical diseases that hamstrung the US military’s expanding
retinue of equatorial adventures. In 1916, the board’s president made an early
observation about the utility of biosecurity as a tool of imperialism: “For
purposes of placating primitive and suspicious peoples, medicine has
some advantages over machine guns.”
The Rockefeller Foundation’s carefully heralded public health
attainments eclipsed popular revulsion for the many abuses Americans associated
with the Standard Oil petroleum empire. After World War I, its patronage of the
League of Nations Health Organization gave the
Rockefeller Foundation global reach and an impressive cortège of high-level contacts among the international elites. As the century progressed, the foundation became an exquisitely connected global enterprise with regional offices in Mexico City, Paris, New Delhi, and Cali. From 1913 to 1951, the Rockefeller Foundation’s health division operated in more than eighty countries.60 The Rockefeller Foundation was the world’s de facto authority on how best to manage global diseases, with influence dwarfing all other nonprofits or government actors working in the field. The Rockefeller Foundation provided almost half of the budget for the League of Nations Health Organization (LNHO) following its founding in 1922 and populated LNHO ranks with its veterans and favorites. The RF imbued the League with its philosophy, structure, values, precepts, and ideologies, all of which its successor body, the WHO, inherited at its inauguration in 1948.
By the time John D. Rockefeller disbanded the Rockefeller
Foundation’s International Health Division in 1951, it had spent the equivalent
of billions of dollars on tropical disease campaigns in almost 100 countries
and colonies. But these projects were window dressing for the Foundation’s more
venal preoccupations, according to a 2017 report, U.S. Philanthrocapitalism
and the Global Health Agenda. That idée fixe was opening developing
world markets for US oil, mining, pharmaceutical, telecom, and banking multinationals in which the Foundation and the Rockefeller family were also invested. That white paper
made the same complaints against the Rockefeller Foundation that contemporary critics level against the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:
But the RF rarely addressed the most important causes of death,
notably infantile diarrhea and tuberculosis, for which technical fixes
were not then available and which demanded long-term, socially
oriented investments, such as improved housing, clean water, and
sanitation systems. The RF avoided disease campaigns that might be
costly, complex, or time-consuming (other than yellow fever, which
imperiled [the military, and] commerce). Most campaigns were
narrowly construed so that quantifiable targets (insecticide spraying
or medication distribution, for example) could be set, met, and
counted as successes, then presented in business-style quarterly
reports. In the process, RF public health efforts stimulated economic
productivity, expanded consumer markets, and prepared vast regions
for foreign investment and incorporation into the expanding system
of global capitalism.
Here was a business model tailor-made for Bill Gates.
Gates has dubbed his foundation’s operational philosophy “philanthrocapitalism.” Here is a stripped-down explanation of how philanthrocapitalism functions: Bill and Melinda Gates donated $36 billion of Microsoft stock to the BMGF between 1994 and 2020.64 Very early on, Gates created a separate entity, Bill Gates Investments (BGI), which manages his personal wealth and his foundation’s corpus. Renamed BMGI in January 2015 to include
Melinda,65 the company predominantly invests that loot in multinational food, agriculture, pharmaceutical, energy, telecom, and tech companies with global operations. Federal tax laws require the BMGF to give away 7 percent of its foundation assets annually to qualify for tax exemption. Gates strategically targets BMGF’s charitable gifts to give him control of the international health and agricultural agencies and the media, allowing him to dictate global health and food policies so as to increase profitability of the large multinationals in which he and his foundation hold large investment positions. Following such tactics, the Gates Foundation has given away some $54.8 billion since 1994, but instead of depleting his wealth, those strategic gifts have magnified it. Strategic philanthropizing increased the Gates Foundation’s capital corpus to $49.8 billion by 2019. Moreover, Gates’s personal net worth grew from $63 billion in 2000 to $133.6 billion today. Gates’s wealth expanded by $23 million just during the 2020 lockdowns that he and Dr. Fauci played key roles in orchestrating.
In 2017, the Huffington Post observed that the Gates Foundation blurs “the boundaries between philanthropy, business and nonprofits” and cautions that calling Gates’s investment strategy “philanthropy” was causing “the rapid deconstruction of the accepted term.”
Gates’s pharmaceutical investments are particularly relevant
to this chapter. Since shortly after its founding, his foundation has owned
stakes in multiple drug companies. A recent investigation by The Nation
revealed that the Gates Foundation currently holds corporate stocks and bonds
in drug companies like Merck, GSK, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Sanofi.69
Gates also has heavy positions in Gilead, Biogen, AstraZeneca, Moderna,
Novavax, and Inovio. The foundation’s website candidly declares its mission to
more effective models of collaboration with major vaccine manufacturers to better identify and pursue mutually beneficial opportunities.”
Gates and Fauci: Colonizing the Dark Continent.
After sealing their collaboration with a handshake, Gates and Dr. Fauci geared up their vaccine partnership quickly; by 2015, Gates was spending $400 million annually on AIDS drugs—mainly testing them on Africans.71, 72 If he could prove that an AIDS remedy actually worked in Africa, the subsequent payoff from US and European customers would be astronomical.
For Gates, the immediate advantage of his new alliance with
Dr. Fauci was clear. The imprimatur of his partnership with the US government’s
premier public health khedive anointed Gates’s public health experiments with
credibility and gravitas. Moreover, Dr. Fauci was an international power broker
controlling a gargantuan bankroll and wielding Brobdingnagian political wallop
across Africa. A trusted presidential confidant, Dr. Fauci had made himself the
indispensable rainmaker for the river of HIV funding flooding the African
continent. Dr. Fauci had, by then, persuaded a succession of US presidents to
humanitarian bona fides by redirecting US foreign aid away from the causes of nutrition, sanitation, and economic development and toward solving Africa’s HIV crisis with vaccines and drugs. His success in extracting a $15 billion commitment from George W. Bush in 2003 for AIDS drugs in Africa solidified Dr. Fauci’s reputation as a global powerbroker capable of delivering US dollars to any African potentate who cooperated with his AIDS enterprise.73 Despite his miserable track record at actually reducing illness over the next decade, he nevertheless persuaded President Bill Clinton, in May 1997, to set a new national goal for science by making the cure for African AIDS his JFK moonshot promise. In a speech he delivered at Morgan State University, Clinton said, “Today let us commit ourselves to developing an AIDS vaccine within the next decade.”74 Largely due to Tony Fauci’s influence, Clinton would squander billions of taxpayer dollars on this fruitless crusade during his presidency and millions more of corporate and philanthropic contributions through the
Clinton Foundation during his twilight years.
George W. Bush similarly relied on Dr. Fauci’s counsel, diverting $18 billion of the US government’s relatively anemic foreign aid contributions to Dr. Fauci’s pet global AIDS projects between 2004 and 2008 alone.
In 2008, the Journal of the European Molecular Biology Organization
published a peer-reviewed article examining how the Gates/Fauci partnership had
skewed NIH funding
to reflect Gates’s priorities, “The Grand Impact of the Gates Foundation. Sixty Billion Dollars and One Famous Person Can Affect the Spending and Research Focus of Public
Agencies.” That article showed how, following the Gates/Fauci handshake, NIH had shifted $1 billion to Gates’s global vaccine programs “at a time when overall NIH budget experienced little growth.” The article outlines the technical details of the Gates NIH partnership; the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust funneled their donations through the NIH Foundation, which administers the money while Gates determines how it is spent.77 In this way, Gates has cloaked his pet projects with the imprimatur and credibility of the United States government. He has effectively purchased himself an agency directorate.
There is little objective evidence that all the treasure has extended or improved the lives of Africans, but every penny accrued to Fauci’s reputation as Africa’s foreign aid Golconda. When it came to public health policy in Africa, Dr. Fauci owned the keys to the kingdom. Gates needed Dr. Fauci to unlock the door.
Citing Ralph Waldo Emerson’s observation that charity can be a “wicked dollar,” sociology Professor Linsey McGoey explains that philanthropy can have evil effect when it “places its beneficiaries under a boot rather than recognizing their equal right to foster their own independence, to realize their individuality.” Professor McGoey is the author of the 2015 book No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Profits of Philanthropy.
had designs on Africa; Bwana Fauci and Bwana Gates donned pith helmets, grasped
their machetes, shouldered their weaponized vaccines and toxic anti-virals, and
made themselves the twenty-first-century versions of the crusading European
explorers Burton and Speke—bestowing the blessings of Western civilization upon
the Dark Continent and requiring only obedience in return. “They are here to
save the world,” says McGoey of
philanthrocapitalists, “as long as the world yields to their interests.“79 Thanks to their powerful collaboration, Pharma would emerge as, perhaps, Africa’s cruelest and most deadly colonial overlord.
HIV provided Gates and Dr. Fauci a beachhead in Africa for their new brand of medical colonialism and a vehicle for the partners to build and maintain a powerful global network that came to include heads of state, health ministers, international health regulators, the WHO, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and key leaders from the financial industry and the military officials who served as command center of the burgeoning biosecurity apparatus. Their foot soldiers were the army of frontline virologists, vaccinologists, clinicians, and hospital administrators who relied on their largesse and acted as the community-based ideological commissars of this crusade. (pp.278-293)
. . .
Virology; A New Janissary Corps.
As with the sultans, khans, czars, monarchs, and emperors of yore, Dr. Fauci’s power derives from his capacity to fund, arm, pay, maintain, and effectively deploy a large and sprawling standing army. NIH alone controls an annual $42 billion budget mainly distributed in over 50,000 grants supporting over 300,000 positions globally in medical research.97 The thousands of doctors, hospital administrators, health officials, and research virologists
whose positions, careers, and salaries depend on AIDS dollars flowing from Dr. Fauci, Mr. Gates, and the Wellcome Trust (Great Britain’s version of the Gates Foundation) are
the officers and soldiers in a mercenary army that functions to defend all vaccines and Dr. Fauci’s HIV/AIDS doxologies.The entire field of virology is Dr. Fauci’s Janissary Corps—
the elite warriors that he can rapidly muster to each new battlefield to achieve new conquests and ruthlessly suppress rebellion, dissent, and resistance.
In 2020, many of the Gates/Fauci HIV vaccine trials in Africa
suddenly became COVID-19 vaccine trials, as the unprecedented tsunami of new
COVID-19 plunder began flowing through Dr. Fauci to the same disciplined
legions of the virology caste. At the outset of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci tapped
his trusty procurator, Dr. Larry Corey, to launch the COVID-19 Prevention
Network with the purpose of redeploying Dr. Fauci’s most reliable and trusted
PIs on a blitzkrieg campaign to win lightning vaccine approvals for his
preferred jabs. Fauci accomplished this daunting mission by transforming his
existing HIV trials, practically
overnight, into Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials. Without breaking stride, his PI army pivoted to march in lockstep into the new viral skirmish. Their exquisitely disciplined
ranks also supplied the “independent experts” who populated the FDA and CDC committees that approved those shoddily tested COVID pokes, the doctors and “medical ethicists” who appeared on TV to run interference for every government-mandated COVID-19 countermeasure: masks, lockdowns, social distancing, and vaccination—including justifying the jab for children and pregnant women. (In any rational universe, giving these untested low-efficacy shots to children and pregnant women would constitute both medical malpractice and child abuse given the low risk for COVID and higher risk from the vaccine among these cohorts.) They penned editorials in the newspapers and articles in the scientific journals validating official orthodoxies and uniformly dismissing dissenters as screwballs, flakes, quacks, and “conspiracy theorists.” From their ranks, Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates tapped the charlatans and biostitutes who conducted the fraudulent studies that torpedoed hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and won approval for their pet blockbuster drug, remdesivir. When revelations that the COVID-19 virus was likely the product of genetic engineering threatened to discredit his empire, Tony Fauci dispatched the handpicked
elite of virology’s officer corps to draft and sign the consequential editorials published in
Nature and The Lancet in February and March of 2020 assuring the world that the lab leak hypothesis was a “crackpot” conspiracy. The monolithic discipline of the virology caste and its capacity to rigorously enforce its omertà effectively silenced debate on COVID-19’s origins for a year.
The saga of Fauci virologist Kristian Andersen, a PI who built
his career on serial NIAID grants, offers a stark example of Fauci’s system of
payoffs. Andersen was the first grantee to alert Tony Fauci, in a 10:32 p.m.
email on January 31, 2020, to the strong evidence that COVID-19 was
lab-generated and that the experiment that created it may bear NIAID’s
fingerprints. After midnight, Dr. Fauci warned his chief aide to keep his phone
on and stand ready for some important work: To arrange a secretive emergency
meeting to discuss damage control with eleven of the world’s top virologists,
including Andersen and five key researchers from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Fauci
was the only US government official on this phone call. Four days later,
Andersen, who less than a hundred hours earlier
was convinced the virus did not come from nature, submitted a letter—secretly edited by Fauci—signed by five prominent virologists—all NIAID and Wellcome Trust PIs—ridiculing the suggestion that the circulating coronavirus could possibly have been lab generated. One month later, Dr. Fauci—without disclosing his secretive
involvement—cited that very letter at a White House press conference as proof that COVID-19 was naturally evolved.104,105 In the months that followed, Andersen’s employer, Scripps Research Institute, received an array of substantial grants from NIAID totaling $78 million for the calendar year.106 The NIAID, by the end of 2020, had granted the employers of four of the five signatories on the paper a total of nearly $155,000,000. That’s how the game gets played. Dr. Fauci’s disciples and soldiers understand that, as long as they support Dr. Fauci,
they will continue to benefit from the endless stream of public health booty he controls—their spoils from the War on Germs and on skeptics. HIV Vaccines: A New Lease on Life In March 2020, Bill Gates stepped down from his position on the board of directors at Microsoft, explaining that he was “now spending the predominant amount of his time on
the pandemic.” Gates celebrated his Microsoft retirement by directing a river of money to build six manufacturing plants for different COVID vaccines and funding vaccine trials by
companies like Inovio Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, and Moderna Inc., all front-runners in the race to develop a COVID-19 jab. The Gates Foundation also invested $480 million in “a wide range of vaccine candidates and platform technologies” through the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), which Gates founded—with Wellcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar.112 Tony Fauci, meanwhile, took over managing the White House Coronavirus Task
Force. The two men played tag team on the evening news and Sunday talk shows to promote remdesivir and to let their obsequious hosts and the American people know that the only way to end the global hostage crisis was compliance by 7 billion people with their new vaccines. No one ever questioned Gates’s mantric pronouncement, which he repeated like a Gregorian chant: “Realistically, if we’re going to return to normal, we need to develop a safe, effective vaccine. We need to make billions of doses, we need to get them out to every part of the world, and we need all of this to happen as quickly as possible.” He reiterated versions of this message ad nauseam, as he did again on CNN on March 22, 2020: “Things won’t be back to
truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.”(297-298)
. . .
How Gates Controls the WHO.
Worst, Gates has used his money strategically to infect the international aid agencies with his distorted self-serving priorities. The United States historically has been the largest direct donor to WHO with a contribution of $604.2 million in 2018–2019 (the last years for which numbers are available). That year BMGF gave $431.3 million and GAVI gave $316.5 million. Plus, Gates also routes funding to WHO through SAGE and UNICEF and Rotary International, bringing his cumulative total contributions to over $1 billion, making Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO, even before the Trump administration’s 2020 move to cut all his support to the organization.
Those $1 billion tax-deductible donations give Gates leverage
and control over WHO’s $5.6 billion budget and over
international health policy, which he largely directs to serve the profit
interest of his pharma partners.Pharmaceutical companies cement WHO’s
toward vaccines with approximately $70 million of their own direct contributions. “Our priorities are your priorities,” Gates declared in 2011.
In 2012, WHO’s then-Director General Margaret Chan complained
that because the WHO’s budget is highly earmarked, it is “driven by what [she
calls] donor interests.” According to McGoey, “According to its charter, the
WHO is meant to be accountable to member
governments. The Gates Foundation, on the other hand, is accountable to no one other than its three trustees: Bill, Melinda, and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett. Many civil society organizations fear the WHO’s independence is compromised when a significant portion of its budget comes from a private philanthropic organization with the power to stipulate exactly where and how the UN institution spends its money.” McGoey observes that
“Virtually every significant decision at WHO is first vetted by the Gates Foundation.” As the UK-based NGO Global Justice Now told Grayzone, “the Foundation’s influence is so pervasive that many actors in international development which would otherwise critique the policy and practice of the Foundation are unable to speak out independently as a
result of its funding and patronage.” (See also “The Perils of Philanthrocapitalism,” Eric Franklin Amarante,Maryland Law Review, 2018.) Gates’s vaccine obsession has diverted WHO’s giving away from poverty alleviation, nutrition, and clean water to make vaccine uptake its preeminent public health metric. And Gates is not afraid to throw his weight around. In 2011, Gates spoke at the WHO, ordering that “All 193 member states, you must make vaccines a central focus of your health systems.” The following year, the World
Health Assembly, which sets the WHO agenda, adopted a “Global Vaccine Plan” that the Gates Foundation coauthored. Over half of WHO’s total budget now goes to vaccines. That narrow focus on inoculations is deepening Africa’s health crisis, according to global health experts and African officials.
Their control of several billion dollars in annual inputs gives Gates and Fauci effective control over not only WHO, but also the retinue of authoritative quasi-governmental agencies that Gates—often with Fauci’s assistance and support—created and/or funded, including CEPI, GAVI, PATH, UNITAID, UNICEF, SAGE, the Global Development Program, the Global Fund, the Brighton Collaboration, and governmental health ministries in dozens of African nations that are largely dependent on the WHO and other global health partnerships. A 2017 analysis of the twenty-three global health partnerships revealed that seven were entirely dependent on Gates funding and another nine listed the foundation as its top donor. The Gates Foundation also controls the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), the principal advisory group to the WHO for vaccines. During a recent meeting, half of SAGE’s governing board of fifteen people listed conflicts of interest with the Gates Foundation.
The most powerful of these groups is GAVI, the second-largest non-state funder of the WHO. Gates created GAVI as a “public-private partnership” that facilitates bulk sales of vaccines from his pharma partners to poor countries.
GAVI is the template for Gates’s impressive capacity to use his celebrity, credibility, and wealth to mesmerize key public officials and heads of state into giving Gates control over their foreign aid spending. Gates launched GAVI in 1999 with a $750 million donation. The BMGF occupies a permanent seat on the GAVI board. Other organizations that Gates controls or can rely upon—WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank—and the pharmaceutical industry occupy additional seats, giving Gates dictatorial authority over GAVI’s decision making. The BMGF has donated a total of $4.1 billion to GAVI to date. But Gates has used that relatively trivial contribution—and his personal charm, I suppose—to attract over $16 billion from government and private donors, including $1.16 billion annually from the US government, five times the amount that Gates donates to the WHO.
When President Trump withdrew the United States from WHO in 2020, he continued the US contribution of $1.16 billion to GAVI. The cumulative effect, therefore, of the withdrawal was to increase Gates’s power over WHO and over global health policy. A recent assessment of GAVI by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson offers potent testimony of Gates’s capacity to inspire the sort of obsequious adulation that has prompted Western leaders to hand over foreign policy and vast hordes of taxpayer dollars to Gates’s discretion. In August 2021, Johnson declared that GAVI was the “new NATO.” Switzerland, which hosts GAVI’s global headquarters in Geneva, has granted Gates’s group full diplomatic immunity—a privilege Switzerland denies to many nations and their diplomats.
Additionally, the sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial—albeit unelected—leader of the WHO. By 2017, Gates’s power was so complete that he handpicked his deputy, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, as the WHO’s new director general despite complaints that Tedros would be the first director general to the WHO without a medical degree and despite Tedros’s dubious background. Critics credibly charge Tedros with running a terror group associated with extreme human rights violations including genocidal policies against a rival tribal group in Ethiopia. As Ethiopia’s foreign minister, Tedros aggressively suppressed freedom of speech, including arresting and jailing journalists who criticized his party’s policies. Tedros’s key qualification for the WHO gig was his loyalty to Gates. Tedros previously served on the boards of two organizations that Gates founded, funded, and controls: GAVI and the Global Fund, where Tedros was Gates’s trusted chair of the board.
GAVI is the most tangible outcome of the partnership Gates
sealed with Fauci in early 2000. Under the terms of the partnership, Dr. Fauci
greenhouses a pipeline of new vaccines in NIAID labs and farms them out for
cultivation in clinical trials by his university PIs and the
pharmaceutical multinationals in which Gates holds high investment stakes. Gates then builds out supply chains and creates innovative financial devices for guaranteeing those companies markets in Third World countries. A key feature of this scheme is Gates’s capacity, through WHO, to pressure developing countries to expedite and purchase the vaccine, and to use GAVI as a bank through which wealthy countries cosign the debt. Western nations once funneled their foreign aid through traditional NGOs for food and economic development. Gates has captured those “deal flows” for GAVI and his pharma partners by pressuring
Western countries to fork over their foreign aid to GAVI. Gates thereby hijacks the foreign assistance monies from wealthy governments, diverting it to drugmakers. In May 2012, following two meetings with GAVI CEO Dr. Seth Berkley, Fauci candidly described the close relationship between GAVI and NIH.
“We, NIH, work on the upstream component of the fundamental
research development. GAVI develop[s] a vaccine and get[s] it into the arms of
people who need them.” Dr. Fauci explained that while “NIH is way up in the upstream,
and GAVI is way down in the downstream,” there is no daylight between Gates’s
organization and his agency. “. . . there are areas of
synergy and outright collaboration between us in setting the standard of what
is needed and what kinds of research questions are important to answer. . . .
We don’t want to be putting resources particularly in the developing world if
the research isn’t going to be
implemented, particularly with cold chain concerns. GAVI is much more of visible, coordinated force now, with a lot of resources, working in many, many countries.” In contrast to some of the less reliable African governments, “It’s an organization you can deal directly with.”
“Western nations originally conceived the World Health Organization and the United Nations to embody liberal ideologies implemented via a democratic structure of one nation, one vote,” India’s leading human rights activist, Dr. Vandana Shiva, told me. “Gates has single-handedly destroyed all that. He has hijacked the WHO and transformed it into an instrument of personal power that he wields for the cynical purpose of increasing pharmaceutical profits. He has single-handedly destroyed the infrastructure of public health globally. He has rivatized our health systems and our food systems to serve his own purposes.”
As Jeremy Loffredo and Michele Greenstein concede in their July 2020 article, “The Gates Foundation has already effectively privatized the international body charged with creating health policy, transforming it into a vehicle for corporate dominance. It has facilitated the dumping of toxic products onto the people of the Global South, and even used the world’s poor as guinea pigs for drug experiments. . . . The Gates Foundation’s influence over public health policy is practically contingent on ensuring that safety regulations and other government functions are weak enough to be circumvented. It therefore operates against the independence of nation states and as a vehicle for Western capital.”
The Sanctity of Patents.
A singular feature of Gates’s vaccine caper—largely unnoticed until recently by the global press—is his ironclad commitment to protect pharma’s intellectual property rights. Asked in a Sky News interview if sharing intellectual property and the recipe for vaccines would be helpful, Gates replied bluntly: “No.”
“There’s all sorts of issues around intellectual property having to do with medicines, but not in terms of how quickly we’ve been able to ramp up the volume here. . . . I do a regular phone call with the pharmaceutical CEOs to make sure that work is going at full speed.”
In April 2021, his unyielding allegiance to patent rights —and
corporate profits—finally caused cracks to appear in the monolithic support for
Gates among mainstream media and the public health establishment That month,
the New Republic writer Alexander Zaitchik
published a lengthy article, “Vaccine Monster,” describing how Bill Gates had aggressively impeded global access to COVID vaccines by the world’s poorest people in
order to safeguard the profitable patent privileges of his pharmaceutical partners.
By March 2020, Indian and African nations anticipating severe vaccine shortages of COVID inoculations for their populations were clamoring for a waiver of patent rights that would allow local manufacturers to rapidly supply hundreds of millions of generic vaccines at prices that would provide access to the poor. Western nations joined the hullabaloo in the cause of patent exemptions recognizing that government innovation, vast flows of taxpayer subsidies, regulatory waivers, liability exemptions, coercive mandates, and licensing monopolies had given birth to the COVID vaccines with drug companies themselves playing relatively minor roles.
By August 2020, a global movement to waive patents for COVID-19
vaccines had gathered the momentum of a runaway locomotive. Proponents included
much of the global research community, major NGOs with long experience in
medicines development and access, and
dozens of current and former world leaders and public health experts. In a May 2020 open letter, more than 140 political and civil society leaders called upon governments and companies to begin pooling their intellectual property. “Now is not the time . . . to leave this massive and moral task to market forces,” they wrote. In early March 2021, the world’s leading public health authorities launched a voluntary intellectual property pool inside the WHO to ensure that COVID-19 drugs and vaccines would be universally and cheaply available—the WHO COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, or C-TAP.
In May 2021, President Biden threw his weight behind the
movement, calling for a temporary suspension of patent protections for COVID-19
vaccines to ensure coverage among poorer nations.145 “We believe that
intellectual property rights constitute a very substantial barrier to ensure
equitable access,” he said. “We believe that if we could have a limited,
targeted waiver to ensure that we can ramp up production in various parts of
the world, we would
go a long way to ensure that we address not only the prevention but also the treatment of COVID-19.” Biden’s equity initiative forced Gates into the open. Gates’s entire philanthrocapitalism business model rests on the sanctity of knowledge monopolies; and so, with the whole world watching, Gates revealed that patent integrity—the source of vaccine profits to his pharma partners— is the sine qua non of Gates’s global health initiatives. When push turns to shove, patent protection eclipses his professed concerns for
His ironclad control of WHO made Gates’s opposition to C-Tap
dispositive. The runaway train hit a granite mountain. Any pretense that
democracy or equity should determine global health policy collapsed before the
raw power and influence of Bill Gates. According to the
New Republic, “Advocates for pooling and open science, who seemed ascendant and even unstoppable that winter, confronted the possibility that they’d been outmatched and outmaneuvered by the most powerful man in global public health.”
Gates derailed the C-Tap pool, replacing it with his own WHO
program, the “COVID-19 Act- Accelerator,” which consecrated industry patent
rights and relegated developing world vaccination programs to the charitable impulses
of pharmaceutical companies and Western donor nations fighting for their own
share of the vaccines. As the predictable result of Gates’s intervention,
around 130 of the poorest of the world’s 190 nations, 2.5 billion people, have
had zero access to vaccines as of February 2021. As Zaitchik pointed out, the
supply crisis was easily foreseeable: “Not only were the obstacles posed by intellectual
property easily predictable a year ago, there was no lack of people making
noise about the urgency of
avoiding them.” Gates had once again used his international reputation and money authority to shield corporate greed with a “halo effect.” International health officials warned, for example, that despite all government expressions of concern about Africa, “Less than 2 percent of all doses administered globally have been in Africa. Just 1.5 percent of the continent’s population are fully vaccinated.” (Paradoxically, these nations happen to have lower COVID mortalities by orders of magnitude.)
“There has never been a point at which the Gates Foundation—before
the pandemic, at the start of the pandemic, and now at the worst moment of the
pandemic—is willing to surrender and look at IP as something that has to be
managed differently to ensure that we’re doing as
much as possible,” said Rohit Malpani, board member of the global health agency UNITAID.
Gates opposed waiving some provisions of the World Trade
Organization‘s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, or TRIPS. A waiver would allow member nations to stop enforcing a set
of COVID-19-related patents for the duration of the pandemic. “Bill Gates asked
everyone to block the TRIPS waiver and trust a handful of companies hoarding IP
and know-how,” said James Love, director at Knowledge Ecology
Gates’s commitment to patent rights is existential and unyielding. Gates has ruthlessly defended intellectual property monopolies since his early battles with open-source hobbyists in Microsoft’s natal days. Gates built both his fortune and his charitable model of philanthrocapitalism on the sanctity of intellectual property protections in software, food, and drugs.
Gates made his bones with his Big Pharma partners by triumphing over Nelson Mandela in hand-to-hand combat during the grim African AIDS crisis of the 1990s. South Africa was ground zero in the global AIDS epidemic, with HIV infection rates affecting one in every five adults. Mandela had made himself the paladin in a Third World crusade to allow generic drugmakers to give the global poor access to expensive AIDS drugs. Mandela’s reputation
as a kind of saint stymied the pharmaceutical companies, reluctant to defend a venal business model that—by their own estimation— was a death sentence for 29 million African children and adults. Cloaking himself in the moral authority as the world’s largest charitable benefactor, Gates stepped forward as the industry champion, expounding the cause of intellectual property and knowledge monopolies over public health. That ghillie suit of selfless altruism successfully confused the press and public—especially the liberal establishment—about Gates’s solipsistic motives for over two decades.
In December 1997, Mandela’s administration pushed through a
law allowing the health officials to import, produce, or purchase generic AIDS
drugs that were out of reach for most Africans. Pharma was happy to test AIDS drugs
on Africans but had priced the final product far out of their reach. Glaxo, for
example, was still selling annual dosages of AZT for $10,000. Gates declared
war on Mandela and his generic drug crusade by supporting a suit
by thirty-nine pharma multinationals who sued South Africa to prevent poorer nations from accessing generic AIDS drugs for their people. Once again, Gates put the halo on
The New Republic chronicled the fight: “In Geneva, the lawsuit was reflected in a battle at the WHO, which was divided along a north-south fault line: on one side, the home countries of the Western drug companies; on the other, a coalition of most from the global south and dozens of leading public health groups including Médecins Sans Frontières and Oxfam joined the battle on behalf of Mandela.”
In the end, Gates and pharma won the legal case, and Gates helped push through enduring bullet-proof protection for pharmaceutical patents by his implacable support of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), an international agreement that outlawed the use of unsanctioned generics to combat AIDS and other diseases.
Today, leading public health officials agree that the primary drivers of the current artificial shortage of COVID-19 vaccines is Gates’s defense of intellectual property rights to protect the profiteering by his pharma partners.
Zaitchik recounts how “battle-scarred” public health veterans
saw clearly, for the first time, how Gates’s addiction to proprietary science
and market monopolies easily overrode his professed concern about the impacts
of the pandemic and poor nations and the structural
inequality in access to medicines: “COVID19 reveals the deep structural inequality in access to medicines globally, and a root cause is IP that sustains and dominates industry’s interests at the cost of lives.”
Zaitchik offers a devastating indictment of Gates: “Gates is
certain he knows better. But his failure to anticipate a crisis of supply, and
his refusal to engage those who predicted it, have
complicated the carefully maintained image of an all-knowing, saintly
COVAX presents a high-stakes demonstration of Gates’s deepest ideological commitments, not just to intellectual property rights but also to the conflation of these rights with an imaginary free market in pharmaceuticals—an industry dominated by companies whose power derives from politically constructed and politically imposed monopolies.”
After describing how Gates pushed back ruthlessly “defending the status quo and running effective interference for those profiting by the billions from their control of COVID-19 vaccines,” Zaitchik offers a glimmer of hope for humanity’s most downtrodden third fighting for their lives against this “vaccine monster”: “There are signs of overdue scrutiny of Gates’s role in public health and lifelong commitment to exclusive intellectual property rights.”(pp.300-307)
. . .
Neutralizing the Press.
Piller and Smith’s Los Angeles Times exposé on Gates’s calamitous African adventure is an artifact of an expired era. Investigative journalism of this probative quality is a quaint relic of a time when editors and producers still permitted their reporters and correspondents to express skepticism toward Gates. Even before the open censorship of the COVID epoch, US media reports about Gates’s charities operated in the narrow range between obsequious fawning and adulation. This is no accident. By 2006, the tsunami of advertising revenues from pharmaceutical firms —about $4.8 billion annually—had already drowned out most of the voices of vaccine dissent in mainstream media.200 By 2020, those expenditures grew to $9.53 billion.
After the devastating Los Angeles Times piece, Gates moved
aggressively to neutralize the once-independent press with compromising grants
that struggling news organizations couldn’t refuse. An August 2020 expose by Tim
Schwab in the Columbia Journalism Review showed how Gates dispensed at
least $250 million in grants to media outlets including NPR, Public Television
(PBS), The Guardian, The Independent, BBC, Al Jazeera, Propublica,The Daily Telegraph, The Atlantic, The
Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, The
Financial Times, The National Journal, Univision, Medium, and the New
York Times to dampen journalistic appetites for—well —journalism. In fact,
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation finances The Guardian’s entire
“Global Development” section. That shrewd investment presumedly earned the
couple this February 14, 2017 Guardian
headline: “How Bill and Melinda Gates helped save 122m lives—and what they want to solve next.” The Guardian calls Gates and his partner Warren Buffett “Superman and Batman.”
The foundation has also invested millions in journalism training
and in researching effective ways of crafting media narratives to support
Gates’s global ambitions. Gates, for example, gave grants totaling nearly $1.5
million from 2015 through 2019 to the Center for investigative Reporting—apparently
to discourage investigative reporting. According to the
Seattle Times, “Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from the New York Times to the Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.”
The Gates Foundation frequently hosts “strategic media partners”
meetings at its headquarters in Seattle. Representatives from the New York
Times, The Guardian,
NBC, NPR, and the Seattle Times all attended a 2013 convocation. The aim of the event, wrote 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. That same year, the BMGF gave marketing colossus Ogilvy & Mather, a global public relations firm, a $100,000 grant for a project titled “Aid is Working: Tell the World.”
Subsequent articles in The Nation reported that Gates had
invested in a retinue of companies positioned to mint windfall profits from the
COVID crisis and documented the reluctance of players in the philanthropic
donor community and key charities to criticize their self-serving
arrangements. Fearful of his prowess and reputation for vendetta, leading charities keep their mouths shut about Gates’s recipe for leavening his altruism with profiteering. They call this omertà “the Bill Chill.”
Gates has also made large strategic investments in Poynter and the International Network of Fact Checking Organizations, which dutifully “debunks” virtually every public statement that seems critical of Gates, whether accurate or not.
In 2008, the communications chief for PBS NewsHour, Rob Flynn, explained that “there are not a heck of a lot of things you could touch in global health these days that would not have some kind of Gates tentacle.” This was around the time when the foundation gave NewsHour $3.5 million to establish a dedicated production unit to report on important global health issues.
That kind of moolah purchased a lot of goodwill from the Fourth
Estate. Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post called Gates the “champion of
New York Times gushes that he is “the most interesting man in the world.”
Time Magazine dubbed him “Master of the Universe.” Forbes calls Gates “savior of the world” who “set the standard for a billionaire good citizen.” Looking on admiringly, editors of fashion magazine Vogue wondered, “Why Isn’t Bill Gates Running the Coronavirus Task Force?”
Ignoring the fact that Gates never graduated from college,
much less medical school, mainstream media outlets
unanimously parrot BBC’s assessment that Gates is a “public health expert” and
ridicule those who question whether the whole world should take his
self-serving advice on lockdowns, masks, and vaccines. In just the month of April
2020, while the virus and lockdowns were severely impacting the United States,
Gates and Fauci did tag-team
appearances on CNN, CNBC, Fox, PBS, BBC, CBS, MSNBC, the Daily Show, and the
Ellen DeGeneres Show, reinforcing their self-serving messages about lockdowns and vaccines. None of those reporters mentioned the fact that the quarantines that Gates was cheerleading on their networks have increased Gates’s wealth by $22 billion over twelve
And Gates’s efforts to promote his contrary narrative claims
only exacerbate their limitations. Gates’s emphasis on conditional lending,
corporate partnerships, top-down control, high-tech cookie-cutter solutions,
and patent privileges tends to favor wealthy nations and multinational
corporations: “These are just a few of the ways in which current development policies are failing the global south.”
“If aid flows are working well,” asks McGoey, “why do they need a masterful PR campaign to convey that message effectively? Many observers on the left and right suggest that the problem isn’t a marketing failure; it’s a failure with the underlying ‘product.’ Aid, they argue, is not working.”(pp.314-315)
Chapter 10: More Harm Than Good…323
Chapter 11: Hyping Phony Epidemics: “Crying Wolf”…357
Chapter 12: Germ Games…378
The 20 + items below represent a selection of recent articles and essays in the Anglophone social media which reflect the ethical standards of capitalist leaders and raise questions about their mental and social stability in this period of multiple crises and a shift away from traditional thinking.
“Follow the leader” is no longer the only game in town, now that collective discussion has proven to be indispensible for our survival and wellbeing.
Francis McCollum Feeley
honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur des Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego
Humanity Held Hostage by New World Order
(This link must be copied and pasted in order to be opened on the Internet.)
from Mark Crispin Miller
Video: “It is not a Case of Pandemic, This is a Case of Murder”: Dr. David E. Martin
Forbidden Knowledge TV 25 May 2022
“For those not familiar with the work, you can go to ProsecuteNow.com and…you will see the Utah Federal Case that we have filed against the President, against CMS and against the Department of Health and Human Services.
“If you want to understand why we refuse to use the term, ‘vaccination’, that’s the reason why, so go to ProsecuteNow.com. There, you’ll also see the summary of litigation and you’ll also see the draft indictment.
What I can say is that we have three different law enforcement agencies who, in fact are working with us right now on the development of the very first criminal indictment against one of the sociopaths that architected this global campaign of terror and you will be hearing more about that between now and the 22nd of May. The crime is coming.
“And if you haven’t read the Utah filing, please do, it is extremely, extremely important and obviously, some of you are aware that… Leslie Manookian hired me and George [Wentz] – to build the case that ultimately led to the Florida decision that removed masks from airplanes.
“So we have the first win, which obviously, is now benefitting everybody who ever has to be in a plane and we are now in the middle of the preliminary injunction phase of the Utah case against CMS.
“I wanted to lean heavily into the Canadian side of this question – but I want to make sure that we stipulate something out of the gate:
“This is not a public health situation; this is not even a science situation. And while I appreciate the public health people and the scientists who love to talk about the nuance of this, it is like commenting on the merits of firearms at a shooting.
“This is a case of murder. It is not a case of disease, it is not a case of pandemic, this is a case of murder and the people currently doing delivery of the agent of that murder are, in fact, people who wear lab coats. If they wore anything else, if they wore hoodies, if they wore anything else, we’d call them ‘murderers’. Right now, we call them ‘doctors’.
“The fact of the matter is, this is premeditated global terrorism. This is premeditated domestic terrorism and this is premeditated racketeering.
“And the reason why I say that is because the evidence is that Canada and the United States collaborated – and specifically, during the gain-of-function moratorium.
“So for those of you who actually don’t understand the dynamics of this, the weaponization of the spike protein associated with WIV1, which is the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1, which was sampled from China, reportedly between 2011 and 2013, which was replicated at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in 2013 and ’14, which was the subject of the moratorium on the gain-of-function research, where Anthony Fauci said to Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in October of 2014, that while, in fact there was a gain-of-function moratorium, his work on the weaponization of the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus spike protein was able to go on because, I quote, ‘He had already been funded,’ end quote.
“And this study, which was done in vivo, resulted in two papers: One, in 2015 and one, in 2016, both stating that the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 [WIV1] spike protein, targeting endothelial tissue, targeting lung tissue, targeting kidney tissue; he stated that it was – and I’m quoting: ‘Poised for human emergence.’
“So anyone who wants to sit here and pretend like this is anything other than premeditated murder is actually watching freight cars roll across Germany and wondering where neighbors are going.
“The fact is that there is no question, whatsoever that this was a premeditated act of murder.
“And for those of you that have not heard it, I will not get on a show without reciting the evidence: In March of 2015, Peter Daszak, the chief architect of the deployment of this particular campaign of terror, along with Anthony Fauci and Ralph Baric, Peter Daszak made the following statement:
‘To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan-influenza or a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype.
‘We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.’
“If you think this is an issue that has anything to do with a virus spreading in a pandemic, you are delusional. This is a premeditated crime. They announced the crime in 2015 and conveniently, the Government of Canada entered into an agreement with the distribution of the lethal agent in 2015.
“And specifically, that was Thomas Madden, that was Pieter Cullisand Ian MacLachlan, who at the University of British Columbia developed a lipid nanoparticle that was required to first, demonstrate the ability to actually do what was called ‘gene silencing’ in monkeys and then, took that technology, after a lawsuit, which was a $65 million lawsuit – the settlement of that lawsuit in 2012 – and for those in Canada, look up that lawsuit – it was the lawsuit between Protiva, Tekmira, AlCana Therapeutics and the University of British Columbia.
“After the $65 million settlement was paid in that particular case in 2015, AlCana Therapeutics, owned by Thomas Madden and Pieter Cullis sub-licensed the lipid nanoparticle technology to Moderna for the development of an mRNA vaccine during the gain-of-function moratorium, in violation of US and Canadian law.
“Because it’s illegal in Canada to support and make an agent which enables the delivery of a biological weapon. That’s actually illegal in Canada and it’s illegal to develop and aid in the development of a biological weapon in the United States.
“Those are Felony Violations of two parts of the Criminal Code of the United States: 18 US Code §2339, which is conspiring to commit acts of terrorism and 18 US Code §175, funding and creating a biological weapon.
“The fact of the matter is AlCana, Acuitas and the University of British Columbia, together with Moderna are, in fact guilty of Felony Violations of 18 US Code §175 and that Felony Violation took place in 2015 – specifically, during the gain-of-function moratorium.
“Any law enforcement official who is actually doing anything in support of Trudeau is aiding and abetting the criminal acts of the Government Canada, the criminal acts of the University of British Columbia and the criminal acts of Acuitas, AlCana and its principals, Thomas Madden and Pieter Cullis.
“So, lest we sit here and pretend to stand on ceremony, the fact of the matter is, it does not matter what clinical trials have or haven’t been done. That’s like debating the merits of copper when a bullet is in a corpse. That is a foolish exercise.
“What we need to be doing is focusing all of our efforts single-handedly and directly on the criminal prosecution of terrorists who have now aided and abetted in the murder of millions.
“And just to put a fine point on this thing: Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, in addition to being the architect of the spike protein weaponized to destroy humanity also holds patent interest in the invention of Remdesivir, which was known in its clinical trials in the early 2000s to be lethal when used in patients for a number of other pathogens.
“And willfully and knowingly distributing an agent that is, in fact known to be harmful and fatal to humans is Premeditated Murder.
“And the fact that all of the governments inside the earshot of who’s listening right now have adopted the Remdesivir protocol and have adopted the acceptance of the narrative that this is, in fact some sort of variation of coronavirus, the fact of the matter is neither are the case.
“This is, in fact a bioweapon delivered by a carrier agent developed by the Government of Canada – and given that Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna both pay royalties to Canadian interests, every single shot administered from Pfizer or from Moderna involve license fees that flow back to the Government of Canada.
“So this is racketeering at the highest level and the Canadian government is complicit and guilty of racketeering and conspiring to fund the commission of acts of terror…
“We have to focus on the crime that’s being committed, we have to put our efforts on that crime and 100% of what I’m doing is making sure that the entire world knows that anybody who actually promotes a narrative that says that there is a novel disease, anyone who promotes the narrative that says there’s a novel pathogen – and any lawyer who stipulates that there are either of those things – is as complicit as Trudeau and Fauci.
“It’s time that we draw a line in the sand and say, ‘We the People will not stand for the domestic and international terrorism that is being done in the name of health.’”
News From Underground by Mark Crispin Miller:
In memory of those who "died suddenly" in the United States, May 24-May 30 (Part 1)
In memory of those who "died suddenly" in the United States, May 24-May 30 (Part 2)
In memory of those who "died suddenly" in the United States, May 24-May 30 (Part 3)
In memory of those who "died suddenly" in the UK, May 24-May 30
In memory of those who "died suddenly" in Italy, May 24-May 30 (Part 1)
In memory of those who "died suddenly" in Italy, May 24-May 30 (Part 2)
In memory of those who "died suddenly" in Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, Mauritius, South Africa, Ukraine, Russia, India and Bangladesh, May 24-May 30
In memory of those who "died suddenly" in China, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand, May 24-May 30
Calls By Western Socialists For A Russian Retreat From Ukraine Amount To De Facto Support For NATO Aggression
by Roger Annis
“Europe is on the brink of total economic failure”
with Scott Ritter
“The Snowball Effect”
with Jacob Dreizin
The Bush Doctrine and the US-NATO Encirclement of Russia
by Shane Quinn
The 16 Biggest Lies the U.S. Government Tells America About the Ukraine War
by Richard Ochs
US Admits to Funding Biological Laboratories in Ukraine
with Dilyana Gaytandzhieva and Dan Cohen
Was Ukraine Building A Dirty Bomb?
by South Front
Study Review – Spike Protein In The Blood of Vaccinated (Firm Data from Stanford)
133x Risk of Myocarditis After mRNA Vaccines in Children (CDC Study)
Spike Genes Have Patented DNA Sequences. This is Dangerous.
Researchers have found a highly unusual presence of a proprietary DNA sequence in the spike protein genome. We already know that spike protein is dangerous for our cells and immune system. However, the presence of MSH3 protein can add dangerous outcomes for our cells. Let's review this hypothesis.
The COVID Pandemic and the mRNA Vaccine: “What Is the Truth? “
Surgical Neurology International (22 April 2022)
The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky (Latest Revision: April 12, 2022)
Will Gates, Rockefeller, Musk and Klaus Schwab Prevail in the Class War? Activists and Thinkers Speak Out
by Michael Welch and Prof. Anthony J. Hall
Russia alleges US concealment of its biological activities in Ukraine
Why, and how, we MUST learn how to study propaganda: MCM's keynote at a (worthy!) academic conference
with Mark Crispin Miller
I spoke to a receptive group of younger academics who understand what higher education should be doing in the face this worldwide catastrophe.
Nuland-Pyatt Tape Removed From YouTube After 8 Years
by Joe Lauria
Nuland-Pyatt Video Restored to YouTube
CovertAction Bulletin Podcast: Whitewashing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine & Biden’s “Disinformation Governing Board”
by Rachel Hu and Chris Garaffa
Western Media Engages in a War on Truth
by Russell Bentley
Remember the Maine: The Alleged Russian Atrocity at Bucha Looks Like Another in a Long Line of False Pretexts for War
by Jeremy Kuzmarov
Weekly Update --- What's Biden's End Game in Ukraine?
with Ron Paul
War in Eastern Ukraine Looks a Lot Different in Person Than it Does on CNN
by John Parker
“Ukraine update & Wheat for Rubles has collective west in panic mode”
with Alex Christoforsou and Alexander Mercouris
Azovstal, UK Media calls it an ‘evacuation’ w/Gonzalo Lira
with Alex Christoforsou and Alexander Mercouris
EU determined to get Russian oil embargo, push Europe towards Green utopia
with Alex Christoforsou and Alexander Mercouris
Due Process Violations in Assange Case
with Joe Lauria
Stella Assange Urges Support for Consortium News
CovertAction Bulletin Podcast: Julian Assange & the U.S. War on Whistleblowers
by Rachel Hu and Chris Garaffa
Defending Julian Assange
with Margaret Kimberley and Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
Ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern on confronting war criminals
with Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate
Breaking Free From Mass Formation with Mattias Desmet
with James Corbett
Palestine, Yes – Ukraine, No
by Michael Lesher
Right-wing March Erodes Jerusalem Status Quo
by Amos Harel
To Times of Israel Writer, Apartheid is OK, Sympathy for Palestinians “Loathsome”
by Miko Peled
Planned Jewish nationalist "flag march" is a festival of hate
by Tamara Nassar
"Let Your Village Burn!" - Racism, Violence Abound In Israeli Nationalists' Jerusalem March
by Tyler Durden
In the latest iteration of an incendiary tradition, thousands of nationalist Israelis marched through the Muslim Old City quarter of Jerusalem on Sunday. Along the way, the mostly young, orthodox Jewish throng chanted racist, genocidal slogans and attacked Palestinians and their property.
Noa Tishby’s spin fails to obscure horror at Shireen Abu Akleh’s funeral procession
by Michael F. Brown
Call on Israel to Demolish Apartheid, Not Palestinian Homes
Shireen Abu Akleh and Israel’s War on Journalism
with Lina Abu Akleh
Israel refuses to probe soldiers who killed Shireen Abu Akleh
by Maureen Clare Murphy
The Assassination of Shireen Abu Akleh: Who Gave the Order?
by Miko Peled
Censoring Palestine: Swarms of Israeli Bots Are Crippling Pro-Palestinian Twitter Accounts
by Jessica Buxbaum
West Bank restiveness a sign of changing times
by Ahmed Abu Artema
Bennett coalition on last legs as Netanyahu prepares return
by Omar Karmi
EU punishes Palestinian cancer patients to please Israel
by Ali Abunimah
Israeli spy treated as partner in Irish "peace" project
by Davis Cronin
How unions are backing BDS
by Olivia Katbi
New documentary trailer: “Gaza Fights Back”
by Dan Cohen
Filmed during the attack and in the days following the ceasefire, the documentary tells the story of how Gaza’s armed resistance groups outwitted the vastly superior Israeli military and established their ability to intervene against Israeli ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods like Sheikh Jarrah and provocations at the al-Aqsa compound in occupied East Jerusalem.
Israel Admits Assassinating IRGC Member, Risks "Regional Explosion"
by Robert Inlakesh
IRGC Member Assassinated In Tehran, Iran Vows Revenge
by Robert Inlakesh
This Sunday two gunmen on motorcycles opened fire on the car of a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), assassinating him in broad daylight. Iran has described the act as a terrorist incident and President Ebrahim Raisi has vowed a response to the attack, which is believed to have been carried out by Israel’s Mossad.
A dangerous new development occurred this Sunday, with the assassination of Colonel Hassan Sayyad Khodaei, said to be a high ranking member of Iran’s IRGC. The killing took placed in southern-central Tehran, outside the home of Khodaei, when two unidentified gunmen opened fire striking the IRGC member five times according to Iranian State media. Iran’s President, Ebrahim Raisi, later stated that Tehran will pursue “definite revenge” against those responsible for the terrorist incident.
· "Our free press" is blacking out atrocities like these, while screaming of atrocities that never happened - Mark Crispin Miller (21 Mar 2022 10:40 EDT)
· The "Nudge Unit," UK's Department of Domestic Terrorism (and we have one here, too) - Mark Crispin Miller (21 Mar 2022 11:20 EDT)
· Eugenics, Tavistock and the whole damned thing: Cynthia Chung interviewed by Mel K - Mark Crispin Miller (21 Mar 2022 11:30 EDT)
· Russian filmmaker Dmitri Mikhalkov takes a close look at the Nazis' dream for Russia, and what they've said, and done, to make it real - Mark Crispin Miller (21 Mar 2022 12:00 EDT)
· How is Putin NOT part of the Great Reset? - Mark Crispin Miller (21 Mar 2022 12:06 EDT)
· The end of the petrodollar, the threat to food, the ongoing ordeal of Julian Assange,. and more from SAMIZDAT - Mark Crispin Miller (21 Mar 2022 12:27 EDT)
· CORRECTION re: Mikhalkov - Mark Crispin Miller (21 Mar 2022 12:28 EDT)
13 hr ago
Few may realise that the Nudge Unit has offices in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Singapore. Below we focus on UK’s Nudge Unit. Firstly, some background of the role the Nudge Unit has played during the Covid era before we look at, in particular two, staff members.
Over the last two years, governments, in the United Kingdom and beyond, used subliminal methods to secretly manipulate the public, Laura Dodsworth told American Thought Leaders. In the UK, there’s a government unit dedicated to such activities. It’s colloquially described as the “Nudge Unit.”
Dodsworth is a writer, filmmaker and author of “A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The Exposé is now heavily censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter and PayPal. Let’s not lose touch, subscribe today to receive the latest news from The Exposé in your inbox…
The Nudge Unit, officially called the Behavioural Insights Team (“BIT”), was established in the Cabinet Office in 2010 by David Cameron’s government to apply behavioural science to public policy. Now owned partly by the Cabinet Office, by Nesta and by employees, it has operations across the world.
During her interview Dodsworth explained that in May 2020 minutes of a SPI-B meeting were published which were truly an extraordinary insight into the decision making of the government. SPI-B is the Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours which provides psychological and behavioural science advice.
“In this document it said: people might not adhere to the lockdown rules because they understood the risk for their demographic and the sense of perceived threat needed to be raised. Essentially these psychologists and behavioural scientists suggested that people would need to be frightened to follow the lockdown rules. And that, really, sent me off on a journey to understand how fear was weaponised.”
“Nudge” is used as an umbrella term for all types of behavioural psychology from subtle cues to egregious forms such as: fear; shaming; and, encouraging people into collective behaviour, group think and behaving like “the herd,” Dodsworth explained.
“We’ve deviated from acceptable psychological best practice. There are psychologists who wrote to the British Psychologists Society, here in the UK, which very much brushed them off. And they’ve also written to parliament to ask for an enquiry into these behavioural scientists, I’ve done the same thing. Again, brushed off. But I do think ethical codes have been breached,” she said.
“Most of the public do not understand the behavioural psychology techniques that are used on them … We certainly haven’t signed consent forms.
“It’s absolutely wrong for us to be paying our taxation towards activities to shape our behaviour when we’re not aware that it happens. I think we need public inquiries in countries where they have behavioural science units. We need to be consulted, there needs to be a debate about this.
“We’re paying our taxes and government does stuff we know about, we have this transactional relationship, we’re investing our authority, we’re giving them permission to lay down rules because we said ‘yes, we voted for you based on what’s in the manifesto’. Now, as soon as governments start employing subliminal methods to change your behaviour the transactional relationship has changed … so there’s an informed consent angle to this but, not just that, I think it’s fundamentally anti-democratic.”
3.Eugenics, Tavistock and the
whole damned thing: Cynthia Chung interviewed by Mel K by Mark Crispin Miller (21 Mar
2022 11:30 EDT)
Reply to list
Toward the end, Mikhalkov frames the conflict much as Alistair Crooke does in his recent interview with Tom Luongo, which I sent out the other day. As Russia sees it, the West's provocations are the climax of an apocalyptic drive against that nation's traditional morality, and consequent resistance to woke ideology.
That could be true; and yet, at the same time, it also could be true that this whole nightmare is itself another globalist concoction, to distract us from the toll of those "vaccines," and the elite's plans for even tighter rule worldwide; and (as I've lately noted) the horror in Ukraine may also serve to set us up for the next pandemic, food shortages, still more sweeping censorship, and whatever else may serve the elite's purposes.
COVID Russia: The new normalThe Virus Scam has become a permanent fixture of "public health" in Russia
Interessante artikelen week #11
VAN HAMELEN RESEARCH & EDUCATION
Elementaire principes van oorlogspropaganda (deanderekrant)
GOING DIRECT RESET – PHASE II
Remember, the ‘Great Reset’ is a currency reset.
Summary – Going Direct Reset (goingdirect.solari)
Are we witnessing the deliberate destruction of the petrodollar, that will cause a shift to a petroyuan?
“On Friday, after a videoconference meeting, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and China agreed to design the mechanism for an independent international monetary and financial system. The EAEU consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia, is establishing free trade deals with other Eurasian nations, and is progressively interconnecting with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)”.
Saudi Arabia Considers Accepting Yuan for Oil (armstrongeconomics)
Ukraine and the Deeper Global Suicide Agenda (williamengdahl)
World Bank Warns Against Hoarding and Russia Turns to the Yuan (armstrongeconomics)
"World Bank President David Malpass is warning people not to hoard essentials amid runaway inflation and monetary policies that continue to worsen every variable of the situation"
How To Grow A Victory Garden: What Goes In A Victory Garden (gardeningknowhow)
“Victory gardens were widely planted in the United States, U.K., Canada, and Australia during World War I, and again when World War II broke out a few years later. The gardens, used along with rationing cards and stamps, helped to prevent food shortages. Victory Gardens were grown in nearly every spare patch of land in private gardens, public lands, parks, playgrounds, and churchyards. Even window boxes and front-step containers became useful Victory Gardens”.
During WWII - "if there was open land, people were turning it into a Victory Garden"
#VictoryGarden #FoodSecurity #ReduceCost
[DISTRACTED] while all eyes are focused on the Ukraine…
Assange Extradition: On To The Next Hurdle (craigmurray)
Arrestatie Willem Engel overschrijdt nieuwe grens (deanderekrant)
Germany to Begin Confiscating Guns (armstrongeconomics)
WHO doet greep naar wereldmacht (deanderekrant)
mRNA Jab Deaths And Injuries Are Soaring In Europe (technocracy)
“The European (EEA and non-EEA countries) database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, verified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and they are now reporting 38,983 fatalities, and 3,530,362 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots”.
How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculations? (mark-skidmore)
Excellent testimony (20min) by psychologist Meredith Miller on the Mass Stockholm Syndrome after the biggest social engineering experiment in history.
Ukraine : the return of war propaganda (voltairenet)
Ukraine And The New Al Qaeda (Whitney Webb, unlimitedhangout)
“The eruption of war between Russia and Ukraine appears to have given the CIA the pretext to launch a long-planned insurgency in the country, one poised to spread far beyond Ukraine’s borders with major implications for Biden’s “War on Domestic Terror””
Presearch - the alternative for @DuckDuckGo
Recommended by James Corbett (corbettreport)
(NL) Samizdat: clandestien geschreven informatie die in de Sovjet tijd verspreid werd in netwerken van dissidenten.
"Samizdat: ik schrijf zelf, ik redigeer zelf, ik censureer zelf, ik geef zelf uit, ik verspreid zelf"
(EN) Samizdat was clandestine and censored information information in the Soviet era that was created by dissidents and spread in underground networks.
"Samizdat: I write, I research, I redact, I spread, I publish"
VRIJWILLIGE DONATIE / VOLUNTARY DONATION
Vrijwillige bijdragen ter ondersteuning van de de blog, nieuwsbrief en vlogs zijn welkom!
Voluntary contributions to my newsletter and other work are very welcome!
• Paypal adres: Elze_C@protonmail.com
Privacy: het emailadres dat je gebruikt voor het ontvangen van de nieuwsbrief, wordt slechts gebruikt voor het wekelijks verzenden van de brief.
Wil je je afmelden? Antwoord dan op deze email met ‘afmelden’ in de titel.
Privacy: the email address you use to receive this newsletter is only used for sending a weekly newsletter.
If you would like to unsubscribe, please reply to this email with ‘unsubscribe’ in the title.
With best regards,
Elze van Hamelen
Why Globalists Are Taking Over Food System + Would You Pay With Your Face for ‘Convenience?’ + More
Large US egg factory "torched in the middle of the night," US grain silo explodes in "dramatic fireball"—and where is DHS, and "our free press'?
from Mark Crispin Miller
The state and media would be all over these attempts to bring on FAMINE in the USA, if they weren't both (somehow) complicit in this flagrant war on all the rest of us
Here are the two latest attacks on the US food supply. Scroll down for prior summaries of such sabotage—which “our free press,” if we had one, would be headlining, and which the government, if it were ours, would be investigating, while working to protect such sites from further globalist destruction . . . .
Bombshell: Sixty Years After Her Death, New Evidence Suggests Marilyn Monroe Was Murdered by Bobby Kennedy and LAPD Covered Up Murder
by Jeremy Kuzmarov
CovertAction Bulletin Podcast: How Did China Eradicate Extreme Poverty?
by Rachel Hu and Chris Garaffa
NBC Just Simulated A War With China: Here's What Happened
by James Corbett
Strategic Ambiguity on Taiwan Is Dead
by Ted Galen Carpenter
No Way Out but War
by Chris Hedges
Happy Memorial Day
by Mr. Fish
John Parker's Fact-finding Trip to Russia and Ukraine
with John Parker and Margaret Kimberley
Western Civilization at a Crossroads: Mythical Hegemony or Win-Win Paradigm?
by Matthew Ehret-Kump and Edward Lozansky
The Fauci/ COVID-19 Dossier. The 2002 SARS-CoV Patent
by Dr. David Martin
GOP Must Hold 'Radical' Health Officials Like Fauci 'Accountable': Republican Study Committee
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, pauses during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images)
by Joseph Lord
REVIEW: “Science Set Free”
by Ryan Matters
In Science Set Free, Rupert Sheldrake sets out to probe the shaky foundations of materialist science and question long-held beliefs that have, over time, hardened into dogmas.
Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of numerous technical papers. He was a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University, where he was director of studies in cell biology, and was also a research fellow of the Royal Society.
In Science Set Free, Sheldrake unpacks the enormity of our conditioning and the flawed assumptions upon which most of modern science rests.
Through an exciting exploration of modern research, Sheldrake points out the holes in the materialist belief system, and reveals how science has been guided by dangerous dogmas that have grave consequences for the future of humanity.
Such dogmas include the notion that free will is an illusion, consciousness is merely a by-product of chemical reactions in the brain, and nature is purposeless. Sheldrake turns each of these “pillars” of materialism into questions and shows how all of them lead to incredible revelations about the nature of our reality.
Here are the ten questions (which are also the titles of ten of the book’s chapters) that Sheldrake explores in the book . . . .
Omedi Ochieng’s “Groundwork for the Practice of the Good Life”
by Roberto Sirvent
Watch "The Pfizer documents" on YouTube
with Dr. John Campbell
News from Underground
Date: Jun 2, 2022
Subject: Daily digest
1.CDC is quietly firing "monkeypox deniers" - Mark Crispin Miller (01 Jun 2022 14:41 EDT)
2.NO ONE will need a smartphone in 2030, when "many of these things will be built directly into our bodies," Nokia CEO happily predicts - Mark Crispin Miller (01 Jun 2022 14:57 EDT)
3.Did you know about the Sussman trial? (Of course not, because it's too important for "our free press" to report it) - Mark Crispin Miller (01 Jun 2022 15:00 EDT)
4.The state/media narrative on "Ukraine" is a catastrophic fake - Mark Crispin Miller (01 Jun 2022 15:06 EDT)
5.FDA's proposed "Future Framework" is the worst idea in the history of "public health" - Mark Crispin Miller (01 Jun 2022 15:09 EDT)
6."Excellent Sheep": "Wokeness" poses NO risk to the students venting it—on the contrary, it's completely "safe" - Mark Crispin Miller (01 Jun 2022 19:55 EDT)
May 26, 2022
The Centers for Disease Control has quietly begun firing employees who won’t toe the agency’s monkeypox narrative, a CDC whistleblower told Real Raw News.
The whistleblower, a tenured research scientist at the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID,) said that Dr. Christopher Braden, the Dept.’s head, has since May 16 terminated a tenured virologist and two lab assistants for questioning the veracity of current monkeypox cases in the United States. The firings, he added, occurred within days of the employees questioning whether the CDC was artificially amplifying the existence of active monkeypox cases for political gain.
“Look, throughout Covid some working at CDC became very suspicious, knew something was off. That Rochelle Walensky was putting out fictitious active cases and making up symptoms that just didn’t exist—like Covid toes. A lot of us don’t want this to happen again, and a few have spoken out, and gotten in trouble,” the whistleblower said.
RRN was asked to conceal the identities of the fired employees because the CDC had compelled them to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements as a condition for receiving severance packages.
The first to be fired was a virologist who had worked at the CDC for 17 years. On 16 May he was shown pictures of an alleged monkeypox patient, a Massachusetts man with no international travel history and whose hands were covered with blisters, boils, and pustules—symptoms of monkeypox. The CDC had already declared the man monkeypox positive but wanted the virologist to sign off on the diagnosis. The virologist apparently felt something was amiss, for he compared the image against a CDC database of past monkeypox patients, and discovered it matched exactly the picture of an American missionary who had contracted monkeypox while in East Africa in 2012. That person had never lived in Massachusetts, and was, in fact, now dead.
“The virologist we’re talking about brought his findings to Dr. Braden, saying he couldn’t in good conscious sign any paperwork because the case was fraudulent. He said someone within the center was recycling old photos and presenting them as current active cases. Braden thanked him for uncovering ‘an inconsistency’ and said he’d bring the matter to Rochelle Walensky’s attention,” the whistleblower said.
Upon arriving at work the next morning, the virologist was promptly fired. The reasons given were “unethical behavior” and “misuse of company property.” According to the whistleblower, the CDC offered the virologist a healthy severance package in exchange for signing a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement stating he would not speak to the press about monkeypox or reasons for his termination. CDC security, he said, watched the virologist pack his personal belongings, then ushered him out the door.
“He was told, directly, to avoid media, under threat of having payouts and health insurance cancelled. Also, the NDA stipulated he could be litigated against if he violated it. It’s risky giving you this information, but it’s a matter of public importance,” the whistleblower told RRN.
Click on the link for the rest.
4.The state/media narrative on
"Ukraine" is a catastrophic fake by Mark Crispin Miller (01 Jun
2022 15:06 EDT)
Reply to list
Pictured: Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, giving a pre-recorded speech at the 2022 Grammy Awards.
Ron Paul Institute
The idea that Ukraine and Zelensky are going to “win the war” is an absolute fantasy. It’s delusional in the extreme. And yet, so many in the West have been conditioned to really believe it.
If you are getting your narrative and information from mainstream media in a NATO nation, then my heart goes out to you. Understand that your externalized reality on this war is nothing more than a testament to the power of western propaganda. We have a state-of-the-art consensus reality machine which would make Goebbels’ head spin, and makes Stalin’s Pravda look like Nickelodeon.
Much closer to the truth is this: Ukraine is not just losing, but they are setting themselves up for a historical downthrow. If Russian Ministry of Defense dailies are even partly true (most of these are backed up by visual evidence as well), then at the current clip of 200-300 per day of Ukraine Armed Forces lost in combat may, very soon, approach the level of US soldier losses in Vietnam. In just 6 months. Mind you, it took the US ten years to lose an estimated 56,000 troops in that fruitless war of attrition.
It is becoming clearer every day that the Ukraine Armed Forces seem to have a policy of either not counting their dead, or counting them as AWOL, so as to avoid a collapse in military morale (and more actual deserters), and the inevitable international and domestic fallout from having to announce that they have 20,000 or 30,000 dead soldiers, many of whom were untrained, under equipped frontline fodder – forced into conscription by a desperate Zelensky regime eager to please his new funding sources in Washington and Brussels. If their true numbers were announced publicly each week, what do you think would happen to US, UK and EU support for Zelensky and his Nazi brigades? And how long would Ukrainians support NATO’s arm’s length proxy meat grinder war? Not long at all. It would be over yesterday.
Like the actor Zelensky, our governments are also selling a packaged fantasy to their public. Support for a losing war would end in a heartbeat should the true state of affairs become the consensus reality in the West.
Click on the link for the rest.
If approved on June 28, all reformulated Covid-19 shots will skip clinical trials
I. Pfizer and Moderna’s Dilemma
Pfizer and Moderna have a problem — their Covid-19 shots do NOT work. Everyone knows this. The shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, nor death. Over half a billion doses of this product have been injected into Americans in the past 17 months and these shots have made NO discernible impact on the course of the pandemic. Far more Americans have died of coronavirus since the introduction of the shots than before they were introduced.
Pfizer and Moderna are making $50 billion a year on these shots and they want that to continue. So they need to reformulate the shots. Maybe target a new variant, maybe change some of the ingredients — who knows, these shots don’t work so it’s not clear what it will take to get them to work. This is a problem because reformulated shots mean new clinical trials and new regulatory review by the FDA. There is a decent chance that any reformulated shot might fail a new clinical trial and the public is deeply skeptical of these shots so the scrutiny would be intense.
So Pfizer and Moderna have figured out a way to use regulatory capture to get their reformulated Covid-19 shots approved WITHOUT further clinical trials. Their scheme is called the “Future Framework” and it will be voted on by the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on June 28.
II. Doubling down on a failed strategy
Viruses vary by region. At any given time, the influenza strain circulating in England is different than it is in South Africa which is different than in southeast Asia. However, pharmaceutical companies prefer to create one-size-fits-all vaccines in order to decrease manufacturing costs and thereby increase profits. So the W.H.O. and public health agencies around the world (including FDA and CDC) have created a vast “influenza surveillance network” that identifies the different influenza strains in circulation. Then they engage in an elaborate theatrical performance called the “flu strain selection process” where they select four influenza strains that will go into the one-size-fits-all flu vaccine used throughout the world that year.
This carefully choreographed process is a complete and total failure. This is not a surprise — using a one-vaccine-fits-all approach to prevent a rapidly evolving virus that varies by region is never going to work. Lisa Grohskopf from the CDC’s Influenza Division reports that last year the flu shot was somewhere between 8% and 14% effective (based on data from seven sites that participate in the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network).
But a case study of a flu outbreak at the University of Michigan between October and November 2021 found that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine was literally zero.
Over the last thirty years, the federal government has paid out more compensation for adverse events in connection with the flu shot than any other vaccine — so we know that the shot comes with a high rate of harms. Given that the flu shot does not stop the flu, the harms thus outweigh the benefits.
In a sane world, the WHO, FDA, and CDC would admit that they made a strategic mistake and then change course to find better ways to support the human immune system. But we don’t live in a sane world. Instead, the FDA is proposing to take the failed flu strain selection process and apply it to future Covid-19 shots.
Click on the link for the rest.
I have given up on being able to properly pronounce the last name of today’s guest writer. But anytime I see the byline William Deresiewicz I make sure to read very carefully. He first came on my radar through friends who raved about him as a professor at Yale. But Deresiewicz separated himself from that herd when he wrote the book “Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life,” which presaged so much of what we see today—and what he writes about, in part, in the essay below.
Keep an eye peeled for Deresiewicz’s new book, “The End of Solitude: Selected Essays on Culture and Society,” which will be out this August. — BW
Common Sense is a reader-supported publication. Help make our work possible by becoming a subscriber today:
I taught English at Yale University for ten years. I had some vivid, idiosyncratic students—people who went on to write novels, devote themselves to their church, or just wander the world for a few years. But mostly I taught what one of them herself called “excellent sheep.”
These students were excellent, technically speaking. They were smart, focused, and ferociously hard-working.
But they were also sheep: stunted in their sense of purpose, waiting meekly for direction, frequently anxious and lost.
I was so struck by this—that our “best and brightest” students are so often as helpless as children—that I wrote a book about it. It came out in 2014, not long before my former colleague Nicholas Christakis was surrounded and browbeaten by a crowd of undergraduates for failing to make them feel coddled and safe—an early indication of the rise of what we now call wokeness.
How to reconcile the two phenomena, I started to wonder. Does wokeness, with its protests and pugnacity, represent an end to sheephood, a new birth of independence and self-assertion, of countercultural revolt? To listen to its radical-sounding sloganeering—about tearing down systems and doing away with anyone and anything deemed incorrect—it sure sounded like it.
But indications suggest otherwise. Elite college graduates are still herding toward the same five vocational destinations—law, medicine, finance, consulting, and tech—in overwhelming numbers. High-achieving high school students, equally woke, are still crowding toward the same 12 or 20 schools, whose application numbers continue to rise. This year, for example, Yale received some 50,000 applications, more than twice as many as 10 years ago, of which the university accepted less than 4.5%.
Eventually, I recognized the deeper continuities at work. Excellent sheephood, like wokeness, is a species of conformity. As a friend who works at an elite private university recently remarked, if the kids who get into such schools are experts at anything, it is, as he put it, “hacking the meritocracy.” The process is imitative: You do what you see the adults you aspire to be like doing. If that means making woke-talk (on your college application; in class, so professors will like you), then that is what you do.
But wokeness also serves a deeper psychic purpose. Excellent sheephood is inherently competitive. Its purpose is to vault you into the ranks of society’s winners, to make sure that you end up with more stuff—more wealth, status, power, access, comfort, freedom—than most other people. This is not a pretty project, when you look it in the face. Wokeness functions as an alibi, a moral fig leaf. If you can tell yourself that you are really doing it to “make the world a better place” (the ubiquitous campus cliché), then the whole thing goes down a lot easier.
All this helps explain the conspicuous absence of protest against what seem like obviously outrageous facts of life on campus these days: the continuing increases to already stratospheric tuition, the insulting wages paid to adjunct professors, universities’ investment in China (possibly the most problematic country on earth), the draconian restrictions implemented during the pandemic.
Yes, there have been plenty of protests, under the aegis of wokeness, in recent years: against statues, speakers, emails about Halloween costumes, dining hall banh mi. But those, of course, have been anything but countercultural. Students have merely been expressing more extreme versions of the views their elders share. In fact, of the views that their elders have taught them: in the private and upscale public high schools that have long been dominated by the new religion, in courses in gender studies, African-American studies, sociology, English lit.
In that sense, the protesters have only been demonstrating what apt pupils they are. Which is why their institutions have responded, by and large, with pats on the head. After the Christakis incident, two of the students who had most flagrantly attacked the professor went on to be given awards (for “provid[ing] exemplary leadership in enhancing race and/or ethnic relations at Yale College”) when they graduated two years later.
The truth is that campus protests, not just in recent years but going back for decades now, bear only a cosmetic resemblance to those of the 1960s. The latter represented a rejection of the authority of adults. They challenged the very legitimacy of the institutions at which they were directed, and which they sought to utterly remake. They were undertaken, at a time when colleges and universities were still regarded as acting in loco parentis, by students who insisted on being treated as adults, as equals. Who rejected the forms of life that society had put on offer. Who were engaged, at considerable risk—to their financial prospects, often to their physical safety—in a project of self-authoring.
I was involved in the anti-apartheid protests at Columbia in 1985. Already, by then, the actions had an edge of unreality, of play, as if the situation were surrounded by quotation marks. It was, in other words, a kind of reenactment. Student protest had achieved the status of convention, something that you understood you were supposed to do, on your way to the things that you’d already planned to do, like going to Wall Street. It was clear that no adverse consequences would be suffered for defying the administration, nor were any genuinely risked. Instead of occupying Hamilton Hall, the main college classroom building, as students had in 1968, we blocked the front door. Students were able to get to their classes the back way, and most of them did (including me and, I would venture to say, most of those who joined the protests). “We’ll get B’s!” our charismatic leader reassured us, and himself—meaning, don’t worry, we’ll wrap this up in time for finals (which is exactly what happened). The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
And so it’s been since then: the third, fourth, tenth, fiftieth time. In a recent column, Freddie deBoer remarked, in a different context, that for the young progressive elite, “raised in comfortable and affluent homes by helicopter parents,” “[t]here was always some authority they could demand justice from.” That is the precise form that campus protests have taken in the age of woke: appeals to authority, not defiance of it. Today’s elite college students still regard themselves as children, and are still treated as such. The most infamous moment to emerge from the Christakis incident, captured on a video the world would later see, exemplifies this perfectly. Christakis’s job as the head of a residential college, a young woman (one could more justly say, a girl) shriek-cried at him, “is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home!”
We are back to in loco parentis, in fact if not in law. College is now regarded as the last stage of childhood, not the first of adulthood. But one of the pitfalls of regarding college as the last stage of childhood is that if you do so then it very well might not be. The nature of woke protests, the absence of Covid and other protests, the whole phenomenon of excellent sheephood: all of them speak to the central dilemma of contemporary youth, which is that society has not given them any way to grow up—not financially, not psychologically, not morally.
From UK Troll Farms to Covert Psyops: The Troubling Past of Nina Jankowicz
by Kit Klarenberg
Say No To Censorship: Here’s How We’re Rebuilding Alternative Media
with Mnar Adley
Meanwhile, Back in Washington, and Somalia, and Syria, and Kenya, and …
by Tom Gallagher
Most Americans appear to know far more of the activities of the Russian and Ukrainian militaries than they know about their own.
The Rise of NATO in Africa
by Vijay Prashad
A history of naked imperialism continues as Biden approves Somalia redeployment
by TJ Coles
Greenville, North Carolina Organizer Explains Significance of African Liberation Day
with Margaret Kimberley and Mapinduzi
No, it’s not OK when China does it
Oh No. You Were Right!
with Russell Brand
The Eurasian Economic Union Steps Up
by Pepe Escobar
Czech Republic To join Poland And Hungary In Central European Gold Rush
by Ronan Manly
“Is Corporate Criminal Law Heading for Extinction?”
by Ralph Nader
How to defeat the billionaire class
by Chris Hedges
Economists Ran Abramitzky & Leah Boustan: Immigrants Are Still Building America, No Matter What Our Lawmakers Say
with Robert Scheer
Want to Win a Union at Work? Here’s What the Amazon Labor Union Can Teach Us.
by Andrew Willis Garcés
How Georgia's Latinx community is working to 'out-organize' voter suppression
by Jaisal Noor and Jeffrey Moustache
Lula Among the People
by Urariano Mota
Boots on the ground in Buffalo
by Raymond Nat Turner
Reporting From Davos: WEF's Klaus Schwab Talks with Pfizer's Albert Bourla: "We rather prevent the disease by vaccination, than cure it.”
by Peter Koenig
The Brave New World of Genetically Modified People
by Tessa Lena
Medical Crisis’ Is Being Exploited to Push Global Government
by Dr. McCullough
The world-renowned physician has spoken prolifically about how to treat, and not to treat COVID. Now, he is cutting to the heart of what he believes is behind harmful protocols.
Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity
Global Research E-Book, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Josefina Fraile, Elana Freeland, Maria Heibel, Claire Henrion, Conny Kadia, Linda Leblanc, and Vilma Rocío Almendra Quiguanás
Our Species Is Being Genetically Modified. Are We Witnessing Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Viruses Are Our Friends, Not Our Foes
Global Research E-Book, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
by David Skripac
For Bill Gates, It’s “Moneypox”: Simulation of Fictitious Monkeypox Virus Pandemic in March 2021, Goes Live in May 2022
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Another Chapter of “Fake Science” is Unfolding
Say Goodbye to SARS-CoV-2, Say Hello to the Monkeypox Pathogen
The WHO “Stealth Coup” to Dictate Global Health Agenda of Gates, Big Pharma
by F. William Engdahl
The WHO as a “Proxy World Government”? Abolition of the Nation State? Say NO to “Global Tyranny”
by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel and Peter Koenig
What You Need to Know About the World Economic Forum's 2022 Meeting
by Derrick Broze
More than 2,500 heads of state, business executives, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and media personalities met in Davos, Switzerland to plot the future of the world.
As the Davos crowd returns to Switzerland for the first in person World Economic Forum meeting in more than 2 years, several topics were at the forefront of discussion. From energy to inflation, Ukraine and globalization, the Metaverse and ESG criteria, the annual meeting of wannabe elitists saw discussions on a wide range of pressing topics.
This article is a brief look at some of the standout moments from this year’s meeting. (Due to the fact that there are literally hundreds of talks and panels to review from this last week, there may be additional forthcoming investigations based on the WEF 2022.)
World Economic Forum (WEF): Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Opening Speech, Money Weapons Advisors, — Standing Ovation
with Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Proof Elites Are Faking COVID Jabs & Study Finds Mask Mandates "Significantly Increase" COVID Risk
with Ryan Cristián
The Gray Lady (quietly) concedes that masks have zero impact on COVID
from Mark Crispin Miller
And if the NYTimes were a real newspaper, dedicated to the truth, and public good, it would be HEADLINING that "discovery," to get all those STILL wearing masks to TAKE THEM OFF!
Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh Remind Us of the Roots of White Supremacy in the Aftermath of Buffalo Shooting
by Danny Haiphong
Is This the End of the French Project in Africa’s Sahel?
Burkina Faso President Kabore, Mauritania President Abdel Aziz, France President Macron, Mali President Keita, Chad President Deby and Niger President Issoufou at G5 Sahel Summit in Bamako, Mali, July 2, 2017. (Photo: REUTERS/Luc Gnago)
by Vijay Prashad
The U.S. Gives Us Hell but it’s a Liberated Africa that Can Douse the Flames
African heads of state at OAU summit, May 25, 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
by Mark P. Fancher
Biden Redeploys Pentagon Troops to Somalia While Humanitarian Crisis Looms
by Abayomi Azikiwe
On African Liberation Day Biden’s Troop Deployment to Somalia Confirms Africa is Not Free
US Threatens Ethiopia and Eritrea with Illegal “Legal Designation of Genocide”
United Nations World Food Programme trucks in Ethiopia
by Ann Garrison
U.S. Supports Cultural Genocide in Macedonia and Imprisonment of Dissidents as Part of its Geo-strategic Alignment with Greece
Macedonian prison where political prisoners are housed. [Source: republika.mk]
by Bill Nicholov
OffGuardian Archives – because facts really should be sacred
News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller
Newsquawk Asia-Pac Market Open - Weekend News Round Up
Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
GUIDE: How will my state be impacted by the overturning of Roe v. Wade?
by Molly Shah