The web of lies surrounding the Pentagon-run biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine and elsewhere continues to unravel with new evidence showing that Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) is also involved.
Along with Metabiota, EHA is a longtime partner of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which has been funding its bioweapons operations in Africa and elsewhere.
In 2009, USAID launched an early warning system for new and emerging diseases in 21 countries that was led by the University of California Davis‘ One Health Institute. One of the core partners on this project was EHA, along with Metabiota, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Smithsonian Institute.
According to the Daily Exposé, PREDICT partnered with EHA to carry out a nine-year effort to catalogue hundreds of thousands of biological samples, “including over 10,000 bats.”
A 2015 study funded by PREDICT looked at a “diversity of coronaviruses in bats.” The publishing of this study in 2017 preceded the unveiling of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) plandemic, which began in 2019, by just two years.
Entitled “Global patterns in coronavirus diversity” and published in the journal Virus Evolution, that paper explained how PCR assays were used to detect both known and novel coronaviruses.
“Results of a five-year study in 20 countries on three continents have found that bats harbor a large diversity of coronaviruses (CoV), the family of viruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS),” wrote Columbia University‘s Mailman School of Public Health about the research.
One of the study’s 16 authors was, of course, Daszak, whom we know has serious conflicts of interest pertaining to the COVID plandemic. At that time, however, Daszak falsely declared no conflicts of interest.
EHA Executive Vice President William Karesh was also listed as an author. Daszak and Karesh’s company, we now know, is a longtime partner of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is where the Fauci Flu is believed to have “escaped.”
“Notably, the relationship between the WIV and the American Biodefence establishment was advanced by EHA policy advisor, David R. Franz, former commander at US bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick,” further explained the Exposé.
WIV’s Dr. Shi Zhengli, a.k.a. “Batwoman,” had also worked with EHA’s Daszak on bat-related studies. As far back as 2005, Daszak and Zhengli were conducting research on SARS-like coronaviruses in bats. Several PREDICT-funded studies on SARS-like coronaviruses and Swine Flu count with both Zhengli’s and Daszak’s contributions. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these is a 2015 PREDICT and NIH-funded study she co-authored entitled: “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.”
EHA whistleblower says he believes Peter Daszak is a CIA “double agent, EcoHealth is a CIA front organization
EHA partners with and accepts cash from a variety of sources, Huff further revealed, including not just the National Institutes of Health (Francis Collins) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Tony Fauci), but also a slew of other government agencies, private corporations, and foundations such as Google, Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Department of Defense (DoD) also funded EHA, according to an image tweeted by Huff on February 15 showing a list of contributions over the years.
“Rumor is that the DoD has been lying to Congress about funding EHA,” Huff wrote in the caption.
Huff believes that Daszak works directly with, or even for, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Huff stated that Daszak could be “a double agent working on behalf of the Chinese government,” and that EcoHealth is basically just “a CIA front organization.”
In a January 23 Twitter thread, Huff broke this all down even more, explaining that “not only is EcoHealth Alliance a CIA front organization, but the United States of America is primarily responsible for COVID, not China. COVID was a U.S. scientific R&D program where COVID was transferred to China.”
In other words, it might be better to call this thing the American Virus as opposed to the Chinese Virus. Or better yet, how about we call it the Pentagon Virus or even the NATO Virus?
Whatever the case may be, this rabbit hole clearly goes a whole lot deeper than even the “conspiracy theorists” thought it did.
“The start of the COVID-19 bioweapon was at the UNC lab with Baric and Shi,” wrote someone at the Exposé, UNC referring to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the others referring to Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli.
“It would appear that the first COVID-19 bioweapon version was completed in 2015 in a joint effort by the U.S. and China,” this same commenter added after putting a few other pieces together.
One of the primary vehicles for kickbacks and fraud seems to be foundations associated with federal agencies. The reason they’re so frequently used for questionable transactions is because foundations are private entities and not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and other open records laws
The board of directors of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) is heavily populated with Big Pharma players. This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest, as the foundation oversees the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars — unregulated funds that typically go right back into the coffers of the drug industry
This conflict of interest also, at least in part, helps explain the actions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and now-retired director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins. Both have gone out of their way to protect the makers of COVID shots and dismiss evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created in and escaped from a lab
Dr. Julie Gerberding became the FNIH CEO March 1, 2022. She was formerly director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. After leaving the CDC, she became the executive vice president of strategic communications at Merck
The FNIH’s board of directors includes seven current or former drug company executives, the FDA, the Sackler family (notorious for its creation of a deadly opioid epidemic), Johns Hopkins (co-sponsor of Event 201, which “predicted” COVID-19 and the subsequent destruction of human rights), and two major investment bankers, Goldman Sachs and BlackRock
One of the primary vehicles for kickbacks and fraud seems to be foundations associated with federal agencies. This article will highlight and expose yet another way we are being conned and manipulated by examining the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health1 (FNIH), whose board is plastered with major Big Pharma players.
This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest, seeing how the foundation oversees the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars — unregulated funds that typically go right back into the coffers of the drug industry. It’s a very clever strategy to extract even more funds from the American taxpayers.
This conflict of interest also, at least in part, helps explain the actions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and now-retired director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins.2 Both have gone out of their way to protect the makers of COVID shots and dismiss evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created in and escaped from a lab.
FNIH Board — A Who’s Who of Big Pharma
In 2020, Fauci received the FNIH’s Charles A. Sanders MD Partnership Award for his leadership and support of “FNIH programs propelling research in lethal infectious diseases.”3
Dr. Charles Sanders was the FNIH chairman between 1996 and 2016. Before that, he was the chairman and CEO of Glaxo Inc. He also spent eight years with Squibb Corp., where he held several positions, including CEO of the Science and Technology Group.4 He’s currently a member of the FNIH board of directors.
In the video above, Fauci is interviewed by Dr. Freda Lewis-Hall about his career, his achievements and the public-private partnerships that allowed for the creation of Operation Warp Speed and the rapid deployment of a COVID-19 jab. Lewis-Hall is a former chief medical officer and executive vice president at Pfizer. She is also a current board member of the FNIH.
Another striking member of the FNIH’s board is Dr. Julie Gerberding. If you have a sharp memory for details, you may recall she served as director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009.
After resigning from the CDC, she entered the express revolving door between industry and government and was hired by Merck as their vice president in charge of vaccines. Imagine that — the head of the government agency responsible for policing vaccines is hired by one of the world’s largest producers of vaccines.
Sadly, it’s all perfectly legal. Later, she oversaw global public policy and strategic communications at Merck, followed by a position as chief patient officer and executive vice president for population health and sustainability.5 Gerberding has now taken her nefarious behavior to an entirely new level. She’s slid back through yet another revolving door and is the CEO of FNIH as of March 1, 2022.6 Other FNIH board members include:
Chairman Dr. Steven Paul, CEO and chairman of Karuna Therapeutics
Marijn Dekkers, Ph.D., chairman of Novalis LifeSciences
Paul Herrling, Ph.D., chairman for the Novartis Institute for Tropical Diseases
Dr. Paul Stoffels, vice chairman of the executive committee and chief scientific officer for Johnson & Johnson
Jillian Sackler, president and CEO of the Dame Jillian and Dr. Arthur M. Sackler Foundation for the Arts, Sciences and Humanities
Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Professor Emeritus, Johns Hopkins University
James Donovan, a Goldman Sachs partner
Russel Steenberg, managing director and global head of BlackRock Private Equity Partners
The two non-voting directors are Collins and Dr. Stephen Hahn, the current commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. This is quite the list.
We’ve got seven current or former drug company executives, the CDC, the FDA, the Sackler family (notorious for its creation of a deadly opioid epidemic), Johns Hopkins (co-sponsor of Event 201, which “predicted” COVID-19 and the subsequent destruction of human rights), and two major investment bankers, Goldman Sachs and BlackRock.
The inclusion of BlackRock is particularly interesting, and disturbing, considering they have a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings. Together with Vanguard,BlackRock has ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. If you add in the third-largest global asset holder, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.7 Just what is BlackRock doing on the FNIH’s board of directors?
Who Funds the FNIH?
Then there are the donors. The largest donor to the FNIH is none other than Bill Gates. According to the FNIH’s 2020 statutory report,8 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated $96,981,262 that year, accounting for 15% of the Foundation’s annual revenue.9
In 2019, the Gates Foundation’s contribution of $49,827,480 accounted for 35% of the annual revenue.10,11,12 As the top donor, it’s not farfetched to assume Gates might have significant leverage over the direction of the foundation and its funds. GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Wellcome also donated between $5 million and $10 million each in 2020.13 FNIH programs funded by the Gates Foundation include but are not limited to:
Combining Epitope Based Vaccine Design with Informatics-Based Evaluation
Global collaborative for Coordination of Gene Drive Research and Development
The Partnership to Accelerate Novel TB Regimens
mRNA encoded HIV Env-Gag Virus-like-particle Vaccines
The last program on the list — the creation of novel mRNA-based HIV vaccines — is described14 as a project to “test a new HIV vaccine concept in animals using noninfectious ‘virus-like particles’ encoded by an RNA vaccine with the goal of inducing protective antibody responses.”
The initial request for collaboration came from the NIAID at the end of July 2020. In August 2020, the FNIH Portfolio Oversight Committee approved the project, “contingent upon a commitment of full funding in the amount of $1.45 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
The Gates Foundation fulfilled that commitment in October 2020. A memorandum of understanding between the FNIH and the NIAID was finalized in early 2021. A sub-award was granted to the University of Montreal (CHUM), and Bioqual was given a service agreement to manage the clinical trial.
Bill Gates also contributes to the FNIH through Gates Ventures,15 a rapidly growing venture capital and investment firm that works side by side with the Gates Foundation’s program teams “to identify investment opportunities.”16 Specifically, Gates Ventures is an organizational donor to the FNIH’s Biomarkers Consortium (BC), a cancer steering committee, alongside a long list of drug companies.
Congress Seeks Greater Transparency
As mentioned earlier, all of this can help explain Fauci’s and Collins’ behavior during the COVID pandemic. Collins is a board member, Fauci got the foundation’s top reward for support in 2020, and money flows into the foundation from drug companies and Gates, all of whom have vested interests in making sure that whatever the NIH does and recommends to the public, it will produce profits for them.
According to its 2020 Statutory Report,17 the FNIH has raised more than $1.2 billion, and as mentioned earlier, most of that money goes right back to the drug industry, without Congressional appropriation or oversight. While the whole thing reeks of conflicts of interest, it may be difficult to get to the bottom of because, as a 501c3, the FNIH is cleverly exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Nonprofits are considered private entities, and therefore not subject to FOIA and other open records laws.18,19 However, the NIH is subject to FOIA since it’s a government agency, and the funds raised go to the NIH. Basically, it’s a system set up to bypass oversight, and the U.S. Congress is responsible for creating this fraud-fraught system.
Congress Created This Fraud-Fraught System
Congress is responsible for the oversight of federal agencies, but in the early 1990s, it created what sure looks like a pay-to-play system. Not only did Congress create the FNIH, they also set up the CDC Foundation,20 which funnels millions of dollars from drug companies and vaccine makers into the CDC.21
This explains the CDC’s highly irrational and harmful COVID recommendations. The fact that the CDC lies about its pharma funding only makes it all the more suspicious. The CDC has long fostered the perception of independence by stating it does not accept funding from special interests.
In disclaimers peppered throughout the CDC’s website22 and in its publications, it says the agency “does not accept commercial support” and has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.” With the information exposed in this article it is obvious that this is a cleverly obfuscated pack of lies — all possible through sheer semantics, as the funds are diverted through the foundation rather than going straight to the CDC.
In 2019, several watchdog groups — including the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight — petitioned23 the CDC to stop making these false disclaimers24 because, in reality, the CDC receives millions of dollars each year from commercial interests through its government-chartered foundation, the CDC Foundation, which funnels those contributions to the CDC after deducting a fee.25
On the CDC Foundation’s website, you’ll find a long list26 of “corporate partners” that have provided the CDC with funding over the years. The CDC even accepts money earmarked for specific studies or programs aimed at expanding corporate profits or reducing drug companies’ liability exposure.27
As just one example, in 2018, Collins ended up canceling a $100 million study to assess the effects of moderate alcohol consumption after it was discovered that the NIH had inappropriately solicited money for the study directly from the spirits industry, and had designed the study “to satisfy industry interests.”28 Collins also had to ditch a $400 million study into opioid dependency after an independent panel warned there were potential conflicts of interest.29
In 2018, a congressional spending panel also warned the FNIH and the CDC Foundation that their disclosures of financial donations were inadequate. As reported by Science at the end of June 2018:30
“Congress created the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) and the CDC Foundation … to raise private funds to support federal biomedical and health research.
It hoped to encourage transparency and prevent potential conflicts of interest by specifying in the law that the foundations had to report ‘the source and amount of all gifts’ they receive, as well as any restrictions on how the donations could be used.
But last week, legislators on the House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee that oversees NIH and CDC expressed concern that the foundations may not be following those disclosure rules …
A report accompanying a 2019 spending bill moving through Congress reminds the foundations to abide by the PHSA when writing their annual reports … The lawmakers also say it’s not OK to hide the identity of donors who have attached strings to their gift by labeling them as ‘anonymous.’
The language ‘is a marker that we want more transparency,’ says one House appropriations staffer, speaking on background because of committee rules on who can speak to the press. ‘We’d like to see [the foundations] go further, and this language is meant to start a conversation.’”
Among “anonymous” donors to the FNIH in 2016 were the Gates Foundation, despite having given a sizeable $19.1 million grant.31 While the financial statements of these foundations may have improved since 2018, the system itself, which gives private industry the power to influence regulatory agencies through unregulated funding, remains unchanged.
Globalists Aim to Take Over Health Systems Worldwide
The reason for having a BlackRock representative on the FNIH’s board of directors could potentially have something to do with the globalists’ plan to monopolize health systems worldwide — a plan that is taking shape as we speak.
In June 2021, Gerberding, now head of the FNIH, wrote a Time article32 laying out the framework for an international pandemic-surveillance network, which would include threat prediction and preemption as well. While Gerberding did not name the World Health Organization, we now know that’s the organization designated as the top-down ruler, not only of all things related to pandemics but also health in general. I’ll have an entire article detailing this in tomorrow’s newsletter.
It’s important to realize that unless we can somehow prevent the WHO from acquiring this power, it will be able to dictate things like mandatory vaccinations and health passports moving forward, and its dictates would supersede all national and state laws. We simply cannot let this happen.
At the same time, we need to realize just how bought and paid for our U.S. regulatory agencies are, and figure out a way to clean up that mess. There’s been a revolving door between government and private industry for decades, which is how we got here in the first place. Closing that door might be a first step in the right direction, but it’s not going to be enough by itself.
The NIH, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are all so thoroughly infiltrated by industry, restoring them to their intended functions is no easy task. Disturbingly, the same technocratic powers that are working to give the WHO global power over global health have also infiltrated these U.S. agencies. As a result, they’re unlikely to push back. They’re going to be more than willing to take orders from the WHO.
Senator Rand Paul has announced that he intends to introduce an amendment in the Senate to prevent anyone from ever again becoming a health ‘dictator in chief’.
In an op-ed for Fox News, Paul noted that the action “would eliminate Dr. Fauci’s position as NIAID director,” as well as “divide his power into 3 separate institutes.”
Paul explained that “Each of these three institutes will be led by a director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term.”
The Senator added that “This will create accountability and oversight into a taxpayer-funded position that has largely abused its power and has been responsible for many failures and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“No one person should have unilateral authority to make decisions for millions of Americans,” Paul urged, adding that his amendment could “ensure that ineffective, unscientific lockdowns and mandates are never foisted on the American people ever again.”
“No one person should have the sole authority to dictate science, especially when that one person wasn’t ever following the science,” Paul asserted, emphasising that “For two years our lives were held captive by petty tyrants and power-hungry bureaucrats.”
Paul pointed to the recent Johns Hopkins study that found global lockdowns have had a much more detrimental impact on society than they have produced any benefit, with researchers urging that they “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
“A rational person might ask, how in the world did it take us so long to get to the truth?” Paul noted, asking “Why did we spend two years not following the science?”
“Well again, that’s what happens when “the science” is dictated by one man, an unelected bureaucrat with far too much power,” he concluded, referring to Fauci.
“Dr. Fauci caused people to engage in activities they wouldn’t have normally by telling them it was safe when masked when it wasn’t. I tried to sound the alarm, but I was censored by YouTube and my videos were taken down,” Paul noted.
He continued, “Dr. Fauci and his friends worked diligently to silence opposing views. The media amplified his efforts. We were branded conspiracy theorists and anti-science for simply asking questions and presenting alternatives to what had been delivered to the American people as ‘fact.’”
As we noted at the time, YouTube suspended Paul for questioning the efficacy of face masks despite the fact that the Senator’s comments were virtually identical to those made by Joe Biden’s former COVID adviser Dr. Michael Osterholm just one week prior.
Months later, when the CDC revised its guidelines on masks, admitting that cloth masks do virtually nothing to stop the spread of COVID, Paul asked “Does this mean snot-nosed censors at YouTube will come to my office and kiss my … and admit I was right?”
“The biggest lesson we have learned over the last two years is that no one person should have this much-unchecked power. And my amendment, which will get a vote this week, will finally force accountability and fire Dr. Fauci,” Paul asserted Sunday.
From May 19, 2021 to March 8 this year, Thailand’s National Health Security Office (NHSO) has paid about 1.509 billion baht ($45.65 million) as financial aid to people who suffered adverse reactions after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, local news reported.
The National Health Security Office (NHSO) is responsible for the financial support program.
“In case of death or permanent disability, each family will receive 400,000 baht ($11,900). 240,000 baht ($7,178) is paid for those who lose a limb or sustain a disability which affects their livelihood, and 100,000 baht ($2,990) is paid to those who suffer a chronic illness,” Thai PBS reported.
According to NHSO, a total of 15,933 so far have filed complaints of adverse reactions to Covid-19 vaccines, 2,328 complaints were rejected.
EDITORS NOTE: The following article comes from a local NBC channel.
When state public health officials publish Monday’s report about the latest COVID-19 impacts on Massachusetts, the cumulative death toll through two years of the pandemic will suddenly stand about 15% lower.
Saying the Bay State’s earlier methodology led to a “significant overcount of deaths,” officials said Thursday they will adopt a new system recommended by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.
And in a step that could reshape understanding of the pandemic’s impact on Massachusetts, the administration will apply the new method retroactively, resulting in 4,081 deaths once linked to the virus being recategorized as stemming from other causes and roughly 400 others newly being labeled as COVID-19 deaths.
“We think this is an absolutely critical step in improving our understanding of who COVID has impacted most significantly during the pandemic,” said state epidemiologist Dr. Catherine Brown. “We believe that this will provide us a much more accurate picture of who has died associated with a COVID infection in Massachusetts, and it will also improve our ability to compare our data with data from other jurisdictions.”
For the duration of the pandemic, state officials have deemed a fatality COVID-related if it met at least one of three criteria: if a case investigation determined the virus “caused” or “contributed” to the death, if the death certificate listed COVID-19 or an “equivalent term” as the cause, or if state public health surveillance linked a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis to a Bay Stater’s death.
The first two measures remain unchanged since the earliest days of the crisis, but the third has already been updated once and is set to evolve again on Monday.
From March 2020 to March 2021, DPH counted the death of any person who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 as a COVID-related death, regardless of how much time elapsed between those two events.
Even if someone contracted the virus in March and died in a car crash in July, they were added to the ongoing tally of pandemic deaths for that first year.
“This strategy worked well at the beginning of the pandemic, and in fact, a paper was published last summer in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which lauded our efforts here in Massachusetts in counting deaths that occurred during the first wave of the pandemic as opposed to several other jurisdictions,” said Public Health Commissioner Margret Cooke. “But over time, our approach proved to be too expansive and led to a significant overcount of deaths in Massachusetts. People who had gotten COVID earlier in 2020 and died for other reasons ended up still being included in COVID-associated death counts.”
The department updated its approach for the third criterion in April 2021, officials said Thursday, keeping the death investigation and death certificate triggers in place. Under that method, officials counted only those who died within 60 days of a COVID diagnosis as deaths related to the virus, unless their death was clearly linked to another cause such as trauma.
That system remained in place for most of 2021 and will be replaced in Monday’s daily report by the new definition, recommended in December by the national consortium of state public health leaders after months of study.
The new method suggested by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists calls for counting deaths within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis where “natural causes” is labeled on a death certificate as attributable to the virus, half as long a timeframe as under the most recent definition in Massachusetts.
Brown said the update will “make sure that what we are capturing is the acute impact of COVID.”
“People who are seriously ill and hospitalized for longer and end up dying after that 30 days have almost invariably had COVID listed on their death certificate, so they end up being counted under another method,” Brown said.
As has been the case throughout the pandemic, if an official death investigation determined the virus caused or contributed or if a death certificate lists COVID-19 or an equivalent term, that fatality will add to the pandemic death toll.
Brown said the vast majority of the 4,081 deaths that will no longer be deemed COVID-related, about 95%, occurred between May 2020 and May 2021, covering the tail end of the state’s first surge and its second surge that winter. Most of the roughly 400 deaths that will acquire a COVID label also happened in that span, Brown said.
Taken together, the removals and additions net out to a reduction in the cumulative COVID-19 death toll of about 3,700 people, more than the entire population of Provincetown.
DPH does not expect to have a new tally for the number of COVID-19 deaths in Massachusetts until it publishes new data on its COVID-19 dashboard around 5 p.m. on Monday. Back-end work to merge datasets will take place over the weekend, according to Brown.
It also remains unclear if the change in Massachusetts will send out ripple effects across the country.
Asked if other states planned to adopt the national council’s recommended methodology as well, Brown said that the new definition planned for rollout in Massachusetts is “actually much more consistent with what many other jurisdictions are already using.”
“This is a recommended guidance definition, and it is designed to help improve comparability across jurisdictions, across states. But we have also heard from a few jurisdictions that they are not planning on updating the way they count deaths,” she said. “What’s really important is that this change to the definition will actually increase the ability to compare the counts in Massachusetts with other jurisdictions because it will be more similar to what most other jurisdictions are using.”
The U.S. Center and Disease Control’s online tracker on Thursday listed 959,533 total COVID-19 deaths across the country since Jan. 21, 2020. Massachusetts had the 13th-most total deaths among states and the 11th-highest rate of deaths per 100,000 residents, both of which will likely change when the updated death toll is published next week.
As of 5 p.m. Wednesday, Massachusetts health officials had recorded 23,708 confirmed and probable COVID-19 deaths since the outbreak first began, so that figure is likely to drop to around 20,000 on Monday.
The new methodology will also apply to weekly reporting about COVID-19 cases in vaccinated individuals, the next version of which is set for publication on Tuesday.
Brown added that preliminary analysis did not show any significant changes to the distribution of deaths by age group, sex and race or ethnicity once the new definition was applied.
“While we absolutely acknowledge that we’re moving to a more accurate and appropriate way to count deaths, it doesn’t change our understanding, it does not alter our understanding, of who has died from COVID and where the most disproportionate impacts have been,” Brown said.
The Baker administration appears not to have made as public an announcement about the first change to its statewide COVID-19 death definition as the latest update. Officials said in April 2021 that they would change how deaths were counted specifically in long-term care facilities to align with the CDC’s national definition, but made no mention in that press release of the broader change imposing a 60-day limit on the span between an infection and death to count in some cases.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, the US government has poured billions of your tax dollars into the vaccine program. More than $9 billion of your tax dollars were given to vaccine companies for research and over $22 billion of your tax dollars were then used to support vaccine distribution. The feds also shelled out another $10 billion to expand access and $3 billion more to spend on an ad campaign to combat vaccine hesitancy.
The government was originally transparent with their advertising campaign, rubbing it in the faces of taxpayers that their money was going to paying for commercials for billion dollar companies. However, according to documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we are now learning that this campaign was far more insidious than just commercials.
According to FOIA documents obtained by The Blaze, the current administration paid the whole of corporate media, including the so-called “conservative” outlets, a billion of your tax dollars to carry out a massive campaign to push positive information about the COVID-19 vaccines. This was done through ads, but the same companies also produced positive news reports on the jabs as well.
The propaganda was carried out as part of the “COVID-19 Public Education Campaign,” a “national initiative to increase public confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines,” was created with the goal of having “trusted messengers and influencers” speak to news organizations to “provide factual, timely information and steps people can take to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”
In response to a FOIA request by The Blaze media outlet, the Department of Health and Human Services admitted that it spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the purchasing of “advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.”
The breach of journalistic integrity in this scheme cannot be overstated. While the average American thought they were consuming “unbiased” media reports, they were actually part of a paid propaganda campaign to convince them to take the vaccine.
As The Blaze points out, “though virtually all of these newsrooms produced stories covering the COVID-19 vaccines, the taxpayer dollars flowing to their companies were not disclosed to audiences in news reports, since common practice dictates that editorial teams operate independently of media advertising departments and news teams felt no need to make the disclosure, as some publications reached for comment explained.”
“Advertisers pay for space to share their messages, as was the case here, and those ads are clearly labeled as such,” explained Shani George, vice president of communications for the Washington Post, in a statement. “The newsroom is completely independent from the advertising department,” she said.
A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Times gave a similar statement, emphasizing that the “newsroom operates independently from advertising.”
However, that was clearly not the case.
Emerald Robinson, an independent journalist who previously served as the chief White House correspondent for Newsmax (2020-2022) and for One America News (2017-2020), said she was contacted by a whistleblower inside Newsmax who confirmed that Newsmax executives agreed to take the money from Biden’s HHS to push only positive coverage of the new COVID shots.
This was evidenced by the CEO of Newsmax, Chris Ruddy writing an op-ed “applauding Biden for his vaccine efforts.”
“At Newsmax, we have strongly advocated for the public to be vaccinated. The many medical experts who have appeared on our network have been near unanimous in support of the vaccine. I myself have gotten the Pfizer vaccine. There’s no question in my mind, countless lives would have been saved if the vaccine was available earlier,” Ruddy wrote.
We have since learned that the jabs are not nearly as “safe and effective” as these media outlets have claimed. Yet mainstream shills came out swinging saying it was.
In the video below, from last year, media blowhard and known liar Rachel Maddox claimed — with no scientific data to back her up — that the vaccine will keep you safe from getting covid.
“Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person… A vaccinated person gets infected with the virus….the virus does not infect them…the virus then cannot….use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people.”
It wasn’t just Maddow either. As these FOIA documents illustrate, every single major outlet took money to propagandize citizens. Given the recent release of Pfizer’s covid vaccine data from the FDA, this move by the government was nothing short of insidious.
In a 55,000-page set of documents released last week, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research allowed the public to access data for the first time that Pfizer submitted to the FDA from its clinical trials in support of a COVID-19 “vaccine” license. Hidden in one appendix is a 38-page report of clinical data for Pfizer’s “vaccine” which lists a massive array of 1,291 alleged adverse side effects from the shot.
The chairman of the Liberty Council, which has been active in fighting mandatory vaccinations, Mat Staver, reported,
“People have been injured and died as a result of the most extensive propaganda campaign in U.S. history and it was paid for with our taxpayer dollars. These COVID shots are neither safe nor effective. However, the American public has been given propaganda instead of truth from the news media. Sadly, most of the American corporate media has been paid off by the Biden administration to publish propaganda. The consequence is that many people have needlessly suffered as a result of the censorship and propaganda.”
Three pathologists have published a piece in the journal, Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine regarding their examination of autopsies conducted of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. According to the three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners, ”The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis.”
These were healthy children, with no evidence of active or previous COVID-19 infection. They also had toxicology screens showing no poisons or drugs present in their bodies.
Instead of observations seen with normal myocarditis injury, the authors explain the injury as “closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy.”
“The microscopic findings are not the alterations seen with typical myocarditis. This suggest a role for cytokine storm which may occur with an excessive inflammatory response.”
Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose
The idea that these injuries could be a result of a natural COVID infection was thus ruled out. They explain that “there are areas of contraction bands and hypereosinophilic myocytes distinct from the inflammation that’s seen with typical myocarditis.”
The type of injuries these two boys suffered is also called ‘neurogenic myocardial injury’ or ‘broken heart syndrome.’
“This injury pattern is instead similar to what is seen in the myocardium of patients who are clinically diagnosed with Takotsubo, toxic, or ‘stress’ cardiomyopathy, which is a temporary myocardial injury that can develop in patients with extreme physical, chemical, or sometimes emotional stressors.”
Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose
Their injuries were a result of a reaction to something, in this case it seems pretty clear that these deaths were vaccine-induced.
“This post-vaccine reaction may represent an overly exuberant immune response and the myocardial injury is mediated by similar immune mechanisms as described with SARS-COV-2 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) cytokine storms.”
Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose
The next question is, are these types of injuries really as rare as federal health regulatory agencies claim? The citizenry has been assured that the risks of serious adverse reactions to COVID vaccines are far less than the risk of serious reactions to COVID itself. But is this true for children? Multiple countries have reported zero COVID deaths in children throughout this pandemic, like Germany and Sweden for example. Others have reported similar numbers on par with the flu, and the survival rate for children has been estimated to be nearly 100 percent.
These are a few of many reasons why some countries, like Norway, do not recommend these vaccines for children.
Furthermore, how effective can a vaccine be for children if their survival rate is already so high, and their chances of hospitalization so low? The effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine against Omicron “declined rapidly for children, particularly those 5-11 years,” according to a study released Feb 28, 2022. It was found to be only 12 percent effective.
A 2021 study out of the University of California used VAERS to show the risk of myocarditis for teenage boys in the 12-15 age group is at least six times greater after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine than being hospitalized for COVID. Another one published in Nature Medicine suggested the same.
Has an appropriate cost/benefit analysis been done with regards to the rare risk of vaccine injury compared to the rare risk of injury from a COVID infection for children?
There are multiple reports of serious reactions to COVID vaccines that have been reported in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). This includes approximately 24,000 deaths ad 44,000 permanent disabilities since their rollout. But the CDC continues to assure the public that “Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.”
Well, do they (the vaccine injury reports) or don’t they cause health problems? Are they properly looked into or not? How can we determine if vaccine injury reports did or didn’t and are appropriate measures being taken by these federal health regulatory agencies to dive in deeper into these cases?
Approximately 50 percent of vaccine injuries reported to VAERS in the last 30 years are all from COVID vaccines. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence of people sharing what they perceive to be their COVID vaccine-induced injuries has exploded on social media. There are multiple examples, Jab Injuries Australia is one of them, Jab Injuries Canada is another.
Below are a few examples of reports submitted to VAERS in context with the autopsy examination analyzed in this article.
A recent death involved a 12-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1784945) who died from a respiratory tract hemorrhage 22 days after receiving her first Pfizer product dose. Another recent death is the case of a 16-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1694568) who died of pulmonary embolism 9 days after a Pfizer product dose (whether it was the first or second is unknown).
Yet another recent death was that of a 15-year-old boy who died six days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer product. The VAERS report (I.D. 1764974) states that the previously healthy teen ‘was in his usual state of good health. Five days after the vaccine, he complained of shoulder pain. He was playing with 2 friends at a community pond, swinging from a rope swing, flipping in the air, and landing in the water feet first. He surfaced, laughed, told his friends “Wow, that hurt!”, then swam towards the shore, underwater as was his usual routine. The friends became worried when he did not reemerge.
His body was retrieved by local authorities more than an hour later.’ The autopsy revealed ‘small foci of myocardial inflammation, an adverse effect of these COVID products commonly found among children and youth, particularly young men.
People, journalists, doctors and scientists who have brought up vaccine safety and efficacy concerns throughout this pandemic have been censored, vilified and labeled as “conspiracy theorists” by governments and legacy media.
That’s not a good look for inspiring confidence in COVID vaccines. What would be more effective would simply be an open discussion, and addressing these concerns that have been brought up. They continue to remain unacknowledged within the mainstream and therefore those who rely on legacy media sources for information remain completely unaware.
The Capitol Police Board has issued an emergency declaration over the People’s Convoy trucker protest that has arrived in DC.
House Sergeant at Arms William Walker announced the emergency declaration as the convoy arrived on Sunday.
“The Capitol Police Board has issued an emergency declaration to ensure that the US Capitol police are able to operate and respond as necessary,” Walker said in a letter to all members of Congress and staff, CNN reports.
Walker suggested people try to work remotely or take public transit while the convoy is protesting.
Walker also said the Committee on House Administration had “determined that extraordinary circumstances exist to permit use of official funds to reimburse short-term lodging expenses in the Washington, D.C., area for certain Members and staff,” per the report.
Washington County, Maryland, Sheriff Doug Mullendore has said that they have not had any issues with the convoy while they were in Hagerstown to rally earlier in the day.
“There are at least four convoys that have converged in Hagerstown and are staying at the Hagerstown Speedway,” he said. “There have been no problems and we are just monitoring things. We are working closely with the Maryland State Police.”
Mullendore added, “They have been very respectful and have caused no problems here.”
Virginia State Police spokesperson Corinne Geller told CNN that the agency had “been in contact with various groups’ organizers to ensure their understanding of Virginia traffic laws.” Law enforcement’s goal, she said, was to “mitigate the impact of additional traffic volume on already congested roadways and Northern Virginia communities.”
In a press release about the convoy’s goals, organizers wrote that “the message of The People’s Convoy is simple. The last 23 months of the COVID-19 pandemic have been a rough road for all Americans to travel: spiritually, emotionally, physically, and – not least – financially. With the advent of the vaccine and workable therapeutic agents, along with the hard work of so many sectors that contributed to declining COVID-19 cases and severity of illness, it is now time to re-open the country. The average American worker needs to be able to end-run the economic hardships of the last two years, and get back to the business of making bread – so they can pay their rents and mortgages and help jumpstart this economy. To that end, it’s time for elected officials to work with the blue collar and white-collar workers of America and restore accountability and liberty – by lifting all mandates and ending the state of emergency – as COVID is well-in-hand now, and Americans need to get back to work in a free and unrestricted manner.”
New documents obtained by The Blaze Media through FOIA request revealed that HHS paid major media organizations including cable TV news stations, publications, digital media companies, and many more to promote the Covid-19 vaccine narrative as part of a “comprehensive media campaign.“
HHS did not disclose how much money the agency had spent on each media platform to push their narrative and spin positive stories about the experimental vaccines.
According to Emerald Robinson, this is the largest and most comprehensive breach of journalistic ethics in history.
“That is the largest and most comprehensive breach of journalistic ethics that has ever occurred. Almost everybody took the money. Almost everybody lied about the vaccines (knowingly or unknowingly). Almost everybody refused to report anything negative about the vaccines — because they were paid to close their eyes. Almost everybody is implicated,” Robinson wrote.
HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.
Hundreds of news organizations were paid by the federal government to advertise for the vaccines as part of a “comprehensive media campaign,” according to documents TheBlaze obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines. The government also relied on earned media featuring “influencers” from “communities hit hard by COVID-19” and “experts” like White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and promote vaccination in the news.
The Biden administration engaged in a massive campaign to educate the public and promote vaccination as the best way to prevent serious illness or death from COVID-19.
Congress appropriated $1 billion in fiscal year 2021 for the secretary of health to spend on activities to “strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States.” Federal law authorizes HHS to act through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies to award contracts to public and private entities to “carry out a national, evidence-based campaign to increase awareness and knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for the prevention and control of diseases, combat misinformation about vaccines, and disseminate scientific and evidence-based vaccine-related information, with the goal of increasing rates of vaccination across all ages … to reduce and eliminate vaccine-preventable diseases.”
“As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity.” -Hunter Thompson