Tag Archives: WHO

MASSIVE Conflicts of Interest at the NIH Exposed

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • 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
  • Comprehensive Cellular Vaccine Immune Monitoring Consortium
  • 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.

WHO Signs Contract with Deutsche Telekom to Build Global Digital COVID-19 Jab Certificate

While the world focuses on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the WHO has quietly partnered with Deutsche Telekom to develop a global digital COVID-19 jab certificate.

The contract between the global health agency and telecommunications company aims to use QR code-based software to display proofs of vaccination anywhere in the world.

In addition to the experimental COVID-19 injections, the app will include other vaccinations the WHO deems necessary for the global population.

The public-private partnership intends to build the digital infrastructure to force citizens to “show their papers” anywhere on the planet.

Another “conspiracy theory” confirmed for those that warned about digital vaccine cards for the past two years.

Reuters reported:

The World Health Organization has signed a contract with Deutsche Telekom (DTEGn.DE) subsidiary T-Systems to build a software solution for global electronic verification of coronavirus certificates, the telecoms company said.

The QR code-based software solution will be used for other vaccinations as well, such as polio or yellow fever, T-Systems said in a statement on Wednesday, adding that the WHO would support its 194 member states in building national and regional verification technology.

The financial details of the transaction were not disclosed.

“Health is a strategic growth area for T-Systems,” said T-Systems Chief Executive Officer Adel Al-Saleh.

T-Systems previously worked with SAP (SAPG.DE) to develop Germany’s Corona-Warn-App tracing and verification app and a Europe-wide digital COVID-19 vaccine verification system.

The FDA’s Cushy Relationship With The Pharmaceutical Industry

Ryan DeLarme,
September 12th, 2021

People are rushing to tout the recent FDA approval of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine as if it were some great scientific victory. The troubling part is that the institution’s shady history seems to be all but forgotten.

No matter how you slice it, the Pharmaceutical industry is the central engine of the global health establishment. The industry’s larger corporations (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, etc.) provide funding for the FDA, the CDC, the WHO; they do this both directly and through NGOs like the EPDA. It was recently reported that pharmaceutical giants are raking in the money with the sale of their novel and inadequately tested COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer expects to earn $33.5 billion in 2021. J&J estimates its full-year COVID-19 vaccine sales to be $2.5 billion while Moderna forecasts $19.2 billion. These enormous figures will be grossly surpassed when one considers the forthcoming round of booster shots and the profits those will yield. 

When it comes to lobbying money spent in 2021, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America group ranks number three nationally. Interestingly, the fourth, fifth, and sixth positions are also members of the health establishment. These are the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and the American Medical Association, respectively. Pfizer by itself is number 15.

The ties between the FDA and Big Pharma run deep, their relationship has become so symbiotic that neither could exist without the other unless massive reforms were to take place. Big Pharma relies on the FDA to approve and rush their products to market and the FDA relies on Big Pharma to receive its funding. Not only that but there seems to be a revolving door of FDA Commissioners landing on the boards of these Pharmaceutical companies. 

Scott Gottlieb, who stepped down as FDA Commissioner in the spring of 2019, soon found himself sitting comfortably on Pfizer’s board of directors.  Gottlieb’s predecessor, DR. Margaret Hamburg, landed a cushy position on the board of Directors for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Steven Hahn, the former FDA Commissioner under Donald Trump, wound up at Flagship Pioneering; the venture capital firm that launched Moderna. 

The list goes on and on, in fact, 9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners —representing nearly four decades of agency leadership— have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies. The lone exception was David Kessler, who joined the ranks in academia before eventually settling in his current position as chair of the board of directors at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Criticism towards the modern medical-industrial complex has triggered many arguments, this is particularly true in the age of COVID. Regardless of whatever stance you take on any medical debate, it is undeniable that the industry operates in the same mafia-esque fashion as the Media, Big Tech, and Big Government.

Zuckerberg, Facebook & Three “Fact-Checkers” Sued For Government Sponsored Censorship

Joe Martino
August 18, 2020

Children’s Health Defense sues Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Inc and three different “fact-checkers” for censoring information CHD shares. Is it time to question our perceptions given the fact may have been shaped by false information coming from the mainstream media and fact checkers?

How much of what you believe is going on within the world’s current events is actually true? Do you think you would make different decisions if your perception was missing important bits of information that change any given story? This is an important question right now, as much of what people think is happening comes from mainstream media or “fact-checkers,” and much of the time, it’s only a small piece to the story that doesn’t truly inform people.

Ongoing Facebook censorship is forcing the hand of independent organizations who have had enough of the platform’s allowance of independent “fact-checkers” to decide what is true and not true on Facebook, and also for unjustly destroying the trust these organizations work for years to build.

What Happened: Children’s Health Defense, led by Robert F Kennedy Jr., has sued Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook INC, and three “fact-checkers” (SCIENCE FEEDBACK, POYNTER INSTITUTE, and POLITIFACT) for censoring CHD’s content on Facebook. CHD cited 1) FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS (BIVENS); 2) LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); 3) RICO FRAUD (18 U.S.C. § 1962); 4) DECLARATORY RELIEF as their official complaints.

As posted on the CHD website:

Facebook acknowledges that it coordinates its censorship campaign with the WHO and the CDC. While earlier court decisions have upheld Facebook’s right to censor its pages, CHD argues that Facebook’s pervasive government collaborations make its censorship of CHD a First Amendment violation. The government’s role in Facebook’s censorship goes deeper than its close coordination with CDC and WHO. The Facebook censorship began at the suggestion of powerful Democratic Congressman and Intelligence Committee Chairman Representative Adam Schiff, who in March 2019 asked Facebook to suppress and purge internet content critical of government vaccine policies. Facebook and Schiff use the term “misinformation” as a euphemism for any statement, whether truthful or not, that contradicts official government pronouncements. The WHO issued a press release commending Facebook for coordinating its ongoing censorship campaign with public health officials. That same day, Facebook published a “warning label” on CHD’s page, which implies that CHD’s content is inaccurate, and directs CHD followers to turn to the CDC for “reliable, up to date information.” This is an important First Amendment case that tests the boundaries of government authority to openly censor unwanted critique of government.

Why It Matters: Many Facebook users are unaware that their perceptions about world events are manufactured by powerful interests and not facts. While people utilize news platforms and social media to get their news, they often don’t have the time nor take the action of verifying the claims from any news source. Mainstream media is often blindly trusted, and anything on Facebook labeled as ‘false’ is filed away in the mental category of “never trust this website or other stories of this same topic.” These perceptions then inform the decisions people make in their lives. Everything from what politicians to support, what products are safe, whether to vaccinate their children, and so on.

Are we allowing powerful corporations, with direct interests in public acceptance and belief in certain ideas to regulate what information is true? Can we honestly say that our beliefs and perceptions around certain current events are grounded in facts? Have we been told all the facts? Or are some left out due to censorship?

The Real World Results of Censorship

The fact that Science Feedback is on this list is somewhat a personal pleasure for me, as here at CE we have dealt a great deal with the ‘fact-checking’ company. They happen to be an organization that all too often uses the ‘strawman claim’ to debunk our material. They look at a piece of content they wish to censor, they then create a claim that isn’t said in the content but relates to the content’s subject, then they proceed to debunk the claim they created. The end result is a grey box on Facebook covering the news content and claiming it’s false. This immediately kills virality and casts a great deal of doubt over our work. Since the vast majority of people don’t read fact-checking ‘debunks’, they never get to see that fact-checkers don’t actually debunk all stories, they simply make it appear that they do.

Fact-checkers have cost our company over a million dollars a year in revenue since 2017, forcing us to have to lay off more than 70% of our staff. They’ve cut traffic to our website by over 90% as well. YouTube did the same on Jan 1st 2018 when they shut off traffic to our videos.

Google also virtually shut off our search engine traffic on May 1, 2020, as seen in the graph below. Prior to this period, they had already been declining our search traffic. This was the most drastic shut-off.

The results of a coordinated effort from major tech companies to censor our work has made it incredibly difficult to provide the trusted high-value service we worked for over a decade to build. Since all of this, we have created our own platform called CETV that is the primary means by which viewers/readers can support our work.

The Takeaway

We will continue to update you with what happens with this court case as it proceeds. The ‘war on consciousness’ and public perception has been ongoing for years, but seems to be culminating as shadow government powers are exposed over the course of time. This public awakening to what happens behind the scenes in our world is a powerful and primary process in the overall evolution of humanity’s consciousness. As we expose and do away with a world built on separation, conflict, and ego, we awaken to a consciousness that wishes to create a world of unity, connection, and thrivability.

Understanding what’s going on here is all part of the process.

“We Have A Lot of Evidence That It’s A Fake Story All Over The World” – German Doctors on COVID-19

Arjun Walia
August 17, 2020

COLLECTIVE EVOLUTION

More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19. Why are so many professionals and experts in the field being censored, ridiculed and shut down by organizations like the WHO? Should we not have the right to examine information openly, freely, and transparently?

Is this article ‘fake news?’ No, because the statement in the title that reads “we have a lot of evidence that it’s a fake story all over the world” is an actual quote from a representative of the group discussed in the article. The statement was  said. Whether or not what the quote says is true, on the other hand, is up for you to decide or according to multiple governments, is up for the World Health Organization (WHO) to decide. Is the title misleading or inaccurate? No, again, it’s a direct quote and represents the opinion of multiple health professionals. Are these health professionals implying that COVID-19 is a fake virus? No, they are simply implying that it’s not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be., and I summarize some of that information below that has them coming to that conclusion.

These doctors and scientists are being heavily censored across all social media platforms, and those who write about them are experiencing the same. Many of the claims these doctors make have been ‘debunked’ by mainstream media, federal health regulatory agencies and ‘fact-checkers’ that are patrolling the internet. Any information that does not come from the (WHO) is not considered reliable, truthful or accurate, and that would include the information presented in this article and information shared by these experts in the field. People are being encouraged to visit the WHO’s website for real and accurate information about COVID-19 instead of listening to doctors and scientists who oppose the narrative of these health authorities.

What Happened: More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called “Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss.” Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss stands for the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee and was established to investigate all things that pertain to the new coronavirus such as the severity of the virus, and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world, and in this case the German government, are  justified and not causing more harm than good.

As the Corona-Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, we will investigate why these restrictive measures were imposed upon us in our country as part of COVID-19, why people are suffering now and whether there is proportionality of the measures to this disease caused by the SARS-COV-2 virus. We have serious doubts that these measures are proportionate. This needs to be examined, and since the parliaments – neither the opposition parties nor the ruling parties – have not convened a committee and it is not even planned, it is high time that we took this into our own hands. We will invite and hear experts here in the Corona speaker group. These are experts from all areas of life: Medicine, social affairs, law, economics and many more. (source)

You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested.

This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany, in one of the most recent, Dr. Heiko Schöning, one of the organizations leaders, stated that “We have a lot of evidence that it (the new coronavirus) is a fake story all over the world.”  To put it in context, he wasn’t referring to the virus being fake, but simply that it’s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu (or just as dangerous) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it. 

I also think it’s important to mention that a report published in the British Medical Journal  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.

Below is a press conference held by representatives of the group that took place last month, you can find more important information below that.

Why This Is Important: It can be confusing for many people to see so many doctors and many of the world’s most renowned scientists and infectious disease experts oppose so much information that is coming from the WHO and global governments.

Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled  “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate “is close to 0 percent” for people under the age of 45 years old. You can read more about that here. He and several other academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggest that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza, and published their reasoning in a study last month. You can find that study and read more about that story here.

Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus and has claimed that, with regards to lockdown measures, that “the level of stupidity going on here is amazing.” You can read more about this here.

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.

Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.

Below are some interesting statistics from Canada. (source)

The Takeaway

We have to ask ourselves, why are so many experts in the field being completely censored. Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO? Why are these experts being heavily censored, and why are alternative media platforms being censored, punished and demonetized for sharing such information? Is there a battle for our perception happening right now? Is our consciousness being manipulated? Why is there so much conflicting information if everything is crystal clear? Why are alternative treatments that have shown tremendous amounts of success being completely ignored and ridiculed?  What’s going on here, and how much power do governments have when they are able to silence the voice of so many people? Should we not be examining information openly, transparently, and together?

SOURCE: https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/08/17/we-have-a-lot-of-evidence-that-its-a-fake-story-all-over-the-world-german-doctors-on-covid-19/

“COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless” Says Bulgarian Pathology Association

Arjun Walia,
July 15th, 2020

The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.” This comes after the president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, Dr. Stoian Alexov, said that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for  SARS-CoV-2.

He criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) and called them “a criminal medical organization” for creating fear and hysteria without, according to him, providing any verifiable scientific proof of a pandemic.  He made these statements sharing his observations in a video interview summarizing the consensus of participants in a webinar on COVID-19 on May 8, 2020, with the European Society of Pathology. It was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health. The video is on the BPA’s website, which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov’s key points.

This may seem confusing as it goes against information that’s been published. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims that “Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19.” (source) So it’s understandable how many people would not agree with the stance of the association, and claim that it is indeed false, and that’s an understandable perception, but should we dismiss the reasoning? They are experts in their field.

According to Alexov, himself and his colleagues have not been able to determine a different pathology of those whom they’ve examined that have said to have passed away from Covid-19 compared to those who passed away from the flu.

Things become more clear as to why the Association has taken the position it has, when we take a look at the science, and an article that goes into more detail.

Why This Is Important/The Science

Is this “fake news?” No, because it’s quite clear that the Bulgarian Pathology Association does take this stance. The fact that they said “COVID-19 PCR tests are scientifically meaningless” is true. Whether or not they are correct, would obviously be heavily debated given the fact that again, it seems quite clear that antibodies have indeed been identified. Or have they?

So, what’s their reasoning for such a statement?

They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that makes some very interesting points. Below is a tidbit from what the article has in it, you really have to actually read the article to get a full understanding.  It’s extremely well-sourced, full of detail and uses not only a number of scientific publications to back up their claims, but also statements from a number of scientists in the field. Again, I recommend you read the entire article here to get the full scope of their reasoning.

In it, they state:

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

They go deep into the science as to why they believe what they do.

We also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”

And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:

I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]

This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2

They then go on to explain a little deeper the science of PCR testing.

In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”

And:

This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

And the FDA admits that:

positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.

Again, it’s easy to see why the Bulgarian Pathology Association cited this article. Once again, to get the full reasoning and picture as to why the testing being used around the world is useless and can’t actually truly identify this virus and people who are infected with it here.

Part of the reason why this information is so shocking to people is that mainstream media has been choosing to only talk about certain topics, thus many people are not aware of how divided the scientific community is on this issue.

The Takeaway

What’s going on here? Prior to reading the article linked in this one, it seems that testing was simple, that you simply test, and get a result. You can test for a current viral infection, or test for antibodies. I was actually suspicious earlier on in the pandemic when I came across a publication suggesting that up to 75 percent of asymptomatic people are actually false positives. (source)

This was my first introduction to the thought that the testing may not be accurate. Then, there are other strange facts like fruit and animals testing positive for the virus, which also hints at foul play. You can read more about that here.

Now recently there are reports of manipulated data coming out of Florida as some labs had their numbers completely wrong.

Why is there so much controversy surrounding this pandemic? Why are experts in this area being censored if their views and research oppose that of the World Health Organization and our federal health regulatory agencies?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves, do we want to keep relying on corrupt organizations for important information about what’s happening? Why does humanity continue to trust organizations that have a lock track record of deceit, fraud and corruption?

Why do we believe that these organizations actually act in humanity’s best interests? Why are claims constantly made by these organizations, and simply believed, even when there is so much evidence that counters what we are getting from them?

Why do we continue to follow their instructions, obey and comply even when it’s not clear if these measures are for the best interests of the individual and the whole?

What is going on here?

These are all very important questions to ask, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a lot more people asking a lot more questions.

Physicians for Informed Consent Say Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 Is 0.26 Percent

Arjun Walia,
July 23rd, 2020

What Happened: The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” In their article, they stated the following:

The public has been made aware of the number of COVID-19 deaths and reported cases that have occurred since the beginning of the current pandemic; however, the number of unreported cases has not been widely known or publicized. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that more than one-third of SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that can lead to COVID-19) infections are asymptomatic, meaning that initial estimations of its severity were grossly overestimated. Now, for the first time, Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has collated data from U.S. antibody studies and produced an educational document outlining how an accurate case-fatality rate (CFR) requires antibody studies in order to guide and measure medical care and public health policies.

Similar to CDC estimations, PIC’s analysis results in a COVID-19 CFR of 0.26%, which is comparable to the CFRs of previous seasonal and pandemic flu periods. “Knowing the CFR of COVID-19 allows for an objective standard by which to compare both non-pharmaceutical interventions and medical countermeasures,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC’s founder and president. “For example, safety studies of any potential COVID-19 vaccine should be able to prove whether or not the risks of the vaccine are less than the risks of the infection.

“Regardless of proof of safety, however, a potential COVID-19 vaccine should only be voluntary, in order to safeguard a patient’s human right to determine what will happen with his or her body,” said Dr. Miller.

You can view the PIC’s educational document assessing COVID-19 severity and how they came to their conclusion, here. Obviously the data is always delayed and things are constantly changing with regards to COVID-19 numbers.

Who are the PIC? They are a group of doctors and academics from around the world who have come together to support informed consent when it comes to mandatory vaccine measures. Their information is based on science. Their mission is to deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and to unite doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccinations. Their vision is that doctors and the public are able to evaluate the data on infectious diseases and vaccines objectively and voluntarily engage in informed decision-making about vaccination.

They are not the only ones in the ‘academic world’ who make the point that COVID-19 perceptions of danger and numbers are unsubstantiated. For example, John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old, explaining how that number rises significantly for people who are older, as with most other respiratory viruses. You can read more about that and access that here. In fact, not long ago a study published by several academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggests that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza, you can read more about that and access the study here.

The mainstream media has also addressed the low case fatality rate, warning the public not to be compliant.

This is important because the data validates what many doctors have been emphasizing from the beginning of the lockdown, that the new coronavirus is being made out to be far more dangerous than it actually is. This is the opinion of many, not a consensus. As a result, many scientists were extremely confused, and still are, at the measures that multiple governments have taken. For example, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history, was one of them. (source) There seem to be dozens upon dozens of doctors and scientists raising the same ideas.

Doctors and scientists of such a prestigious background with decades of experience in the field have been censored and silenced by multiple social media platform for sharing their opinion and research, simply because it opposes the narrative that’s being put out by organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations, for example. YouTube has flat out said that it’s censoring any information that contradicts the WHO.

It’s understandable why so many people are confused. On one hand you have mainstream media outlets reporting an overwhelming amount of dead bodies that have to be carted away in freezer trucks, and on the other hand you have a number of scientists and doctors letting people know that we are dealing something that we’ve been dealing with for decades, just another non-severe respiratory virus. Complimenting that is “fact checkers” that are going around blindly upholding the government and health agency narrative. In reality, they are censoring different perspectives, not fact checking.

Other factors are also confusing, like the fact that deaths are being attributed to Covid that are not a result of it.

Did you know that metapneumovirus has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5? We are talking billions of people. Did you know that outbreaks of metapneumovirus have been well documented every single year, especially in long term care facilities with mortality rates of up to 50%? (source) Did you know that human metapneumovirus infection results in a large number of hospitalizations of children every single year? Did you know nearly 1-2 million children every single year die of these types of respiratory illnesses because they lead to acute respiratory illness? Imagine if the infection rates and death numbers were constantly tracked, and put on an easy to access website, mainstream media, radio etc… Imagine if the other coronaviruses and respiratory illnesses that are more severe in some cases, and arguably more infectious in some cases were subjected to constant monitoring and beamed out to the population every single minute, could you imagine the fear and hysteria?

Are fear and hysteria being used as a marketing tool for a vaccine?

What about Edward Snowden’s thoughts about the under-discussed consequences of the coronavirus pandemic and how it’s being used to take away more human rights?

Here’s a recent Instagram post I came across from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

The Takeaway

Right now, and we seem to see the same thing with other major global events, there seems to be a great divide amongst the population with regards to what is going on. How dangerous is the virus is? Are receiving the correct information from not only our federal, state, and provincial health authorities but the WHO as well?

President Of Burundi Found Dead After Expelling The WHO

Staff Writer
July 17, 2020

While the people of the western world occupy themselves wearing masks, pointing fingers and using so much hand sanitizer it literally kills them, the big world of Geo-Politics still ticks along, following the same tired old patterns with only slight variations in method. A modern twist, if you will.

Here’s a little summary of Burundi’s recent history:

  • The president of Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza, dismissed covid19 as nonsense.
  • The president of Burundi was vilified in the Western press.
  • The president of Burundi expelled the World Health Organization from his country.
  • The president of Burundi died suddenly of a “heart attack”.
  • The NEW president of Burundi immediately reversed his predecessor’s Covid19 policies.

And now for the long version…

6th May 2020

The Council on Foreign Relations blog posts an article titled “COVID-19 is Coinciding with Dangerous Trends in Burundi’s Democracy”.

At that time Burundi was listed as having 7 ‘active cases’ of COVID-19.

President Pierre Nukurunziza’s reluctance to impose policies aimed at stopping the virus from spreading is converging with his enthusiasm for democratic authoritarianism, putting not only Burundi, but Burundi’s neighbors at risk.
[…]
Burundi’s trajectory has been apparent for some time. But the pandemic now raises the stakes for neighboring states whose attempts to control the virus are threatened by Burundi’s insistence on moving ahead with electoral theater regardless of the public health risks involved.
[…]
Just as the EAC’s attempts to advance dialogue in Burundi did nothing to stave off the closing of political space, today the organization seems helpless at best as Burundi and neighboring Tanzania refuse to take COVID-19 seriously.

*

14th May 2020

Reuters reports that Burundi’s government expels the WHO:

Burundi is expelling the national head of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and three members of his team as it prepares for a presidential election that is being held next week despite concern about health risks during the coronavirus pandemic.

The government confirmed on Thursday that a May 12 letter from the foreign ministry was sent to WHO country head Walter Kazadi Mulombo and three others of the U.N. body’s health experts, ordering them out by Friday. Bernard Ntahiraja, the foreign affairs assistant minister, said the officials had been declared “persona non grata” but did not give reasons.
[…]
Burundi has so far reported relatively few cases of the COVID-19 disease: 27 infections and one death. But testing remains very low: the nation of 11 million people has carried out only 527 tests, according to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[…]
Large crowds have been gathering during the election campaign in Burundi, which has no lockdown measures in place at all, unlike many other African nations.
[…]
Some Burundians say privately they believe COVID-19 infections are higher than officially stated but they say they fear to say so publicly because they could be targeted and punished. Léonce Ngendakumana, a presidential candidate for the opposition FRODEBU party, called the expulsion regrettable. “The country alone won’t be able to contain the pandemic,” he told Reuters.

*

10th June 2020

The Guardian reports the death of Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza of “suspected Covid19” [our emphasis]:

The outgoing president of Burundi has died of a sudden illness, suspected by many to be Covid-19.

The cause of Pierre Nkurunziza’s death was described as a heart attack in a government statement. The 55-year-old was due to stand down in August following elections last month.

It was unclear exactly when he died. A government statement said the president, a keen sports enthusiast, had attended a game of volleyball on Saturday but fell ill that night and was taken to hospital.

The former footballer’s health improved on Sunday but “surprisingly, on morning of Monday June 8, 2020, his health suddenly deteriorated and he had a heart attack”. The statement described Nkurunziza’s death as “unexpected” and asked people to remain calm.

*

15th June 2020

The Financial Times runs an article titled “Coronavirus stalks Burundi’s political elite after president’s death”. It’s behind a paywall, but here’s a screenshot:

*

1st July 2020

The Daily Monitor publishes an article from AFP headlined “Burundi changes tack as president declares COVID-19 ‘biggest enemy’” [our emphasis]:

Burundi’s new President Evariste Ndayishimiye has declared the coronavirus the country’s “biggest enemy”, in a major about-turn for a nation which has largely ignored the dangers of the virus.

Former president Pierre Nkurunziza, who died suddenly last month, and even Ndayishimiye himself, had until now downplayed the gravity of the pandemic, saying God had spared Burundi from its ravages. Burundi held a full-blown campaign ahead of a May election, and unlike its neighbours which have imposed lockdowns and curfews, has taken few measures to combat the spread of the virus.

Officially the country has reported only 170 cases and one death in two months. Ndayishimiye was speaking late Tuesday after the swearing in of his new government in parliament. “From tomorrow (Wednesday), I declare the COVID-19 pandemic the biggest enemy of Burundians, because it is clear it is becoming their biggest concern,” he said.

“We firmly commit ourselves to fight this pandemic.” He called for “the strict respect for preventative measures which the health ministry will from now on display across the country”.

He reminded citizens that coronavirus tests were free, as was treatment, warning those who did not get tested when they had symptoms.

“If in future someone does not go and get tested in such a case, it means he wants to contaminate others voluntarily… and he will be considered a sorcerer and treated as severely as one would be,” he said.

*

14th July 2020

As of today, Worldometers.info lists 1 single death & 269 “Total Cases” of Covid19 for Burundi:

*

It seems Covid19 is a disease of rare complexity. Not only is it able to understand the importance of some social protests and avoid them entirely, it’s also able to sense when the world leader is inconvenient and take him out.

WHO Data Suggests It’s ‘Very Rare’ For COVID-19 To Spread Through Asymptomatic People

Joe Martino
June 10th, 2020

Now that contact tracing is underway around the world, data is beginning to make it clear how this virus spreads.

BUT, according to the WHO, those transmitting the virus from person to person are those who have the virus and are showing symptoms, not asymptomatic people.

The belief was that young people and healthy people who did not experience symptoms were also suspected to be potential carriers of the virus to more vulnerable parts of the population, like older people or immune-deficient.

World Health Organisation WHO

While there was not data or reasoning to suggest that young people and healthy people who did not experience symptoms were also potential carriers of the virus, health officials ran with it anyway, locking down countries all over the world.

This struck a chord with many critical thinkers out there, including that of the many doctors and scientists who stood up saying lockdown made no sense and would not help the population get through a virus by creating herd immunity.

The general idea behind herd immunity is that older people or immune deficient people would shelter in place as much as they could, while the youger and healthier parts of the population take the brunt of the virus, fighting it and creating herd immunity.

In most cases, younger or healthier people would deal with the virus with no symptoms, while a some would get sick, and very few would die.

Many scientists talked about this idea, and yet governments and corrupt health organizations like the WHO continued on pushing a lockdown.

Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the emerging diseases and zoonosis unit stated in the press conference:

“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.”

Marie Van Kerkhove tweeted the following regarding the findings within the studies she referenced:

“Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms.”

I can’t help but recall back to independent, meaning non-government and non-health organization, scientists and studies that had been done that stated this virus was not as dangerous as was being touted, lockdown were unnecessary and that this virus was going to end up with similar numbers to the common flu.

All of which turned out to be true regardless of all the fear and measures governments kept taking.

We then can look at all of the censorship that has gone on during this whole pandemic. Doctors, scientists and independent media all deeply censored for having a different narrative – most of which is turning out to be true as each day goes by.

Why the censorship?

Why the desire to control the narrative so much?

Even full on documentaries exposing this pandemic as a “plan” have been removed, regardless of the fact they don’t make any false statements.

Why?

Regardless of how we all may feel about the nature of this pandemic, it has played an incredible role in waking people up to new ideas about how our world functions and why we must deeply question mainstream media, governments and health organizations.

Millions have “woken up” as a result of the missteps by government and media, and that is a great thing.


About The Author

Joe Martino

I founded CE 9 years ago as I love inspiring others to find joy, peace and make lasting shifts in consciousness in their lives. I’ve been working to formulate a new style of media, ‘Conscious Media,’ that tells stories without polarity and division. That digs to the truth and isn’t afraid to look, and that helps viewers make change in their lives as a result of what they view.