Today, I have the most important announcement in the quarter of a century history of this newsletter. My goal and passion has always been about supporting you and helping you take control of your health. I am beyond thrilled that there are tens of millions of people who have benefited from what I have shared over the years.
I am filled with joy and gratitude every time I travel and lecture as invariably many people tell me how I've changed their lives by providing vital information they couldn't find anywhere else and even better that was completely free.
These were the times when many of the views I presented were criticized, but that's to be expected. That was one of the great freedoms we enjoyed. We could have different views and we could speak openly about these views without fear of retribution.
But we are now in a different time. A much darker time. The silence of free speech is now deafening.
Not only is blatant censorship tolerated, it is being encouraged by the very people who were to be entrusted with protecting our freedom of speech.
We are not living from the lessons we've learned before. Never in my life, would I believe the sitting President of the United States call out 12 Americans in a McCarthyism like attack in the United States. As you are aware, I was placed at the top of this list.
The last week has brought a tremendous amount of reflections to me, and a lot of unacceptable threats to a company full of amazing people that have helped me support you in this journey.
By now I am sure you know that there was a recent NY Times article attacking me and it was one of the most widely distributed stories in the world. The article was loaded with false statements made about me and my organization.
The report would be laughed at if it were to be submitted for peer review, the groups that created it are funded by dark money and operated by an illegal foreign agent. The press never questioned it, but ran with their orders from above.
I can deal with the CNN crews that chase me by car while I bicycle from my home. I feel sorry for the people in media that have to follow the orders they are given.
It is easy to dismiss the media pawns, but the most powerful individual on the planet has targeted me as his primary obstacle that must be removed. Every three letter agency is at his disposal, and the executive powers have grown beyond what an individual American's rights can protect against.
A dissenter of medical mandates is now a target and obstacle to be removed. I know – that's 25 years' worth of blood, sweat and tears coming down.
I can hardly believe these words are coming out of my mouth. It's a testament of just how radical things have degenerated in the recent past. However, I will continue to publish new articles, BUT going forward, each article I publish will be available for only 48 hours and will then be removed from the website.
We are at the crossroad where change is unavoidable. We all must make choices that determine our future. To many, this looks like a war ... but what we need to find is peace. I am going to find peace through this sacrifice.
Just to be clear, ALL my content will be removed. This includes articles on:
These will be removed to appease the individuals in power who have an arsenal of overwhelming tools at their disposal, and are actively engaged in using them. COVID-19 has activated and authorized emergency powers that have weakened our constitutional rights. Sadly, cyberwarfare and authoritarian forces are beyond our abilities to withstand, and this is now our only way forward.
Over 15,000 articles full of vital information that has helped tens of millions across the world take control of their health, will be removed. There was a time when people could debate and respect each other freely. That time is now gone. I believe laws are best applied like medicine – locally and specifically.
Local food, local democracy – our local community strength is the best way to achieve peace moving forward, and to stop authoritarian technocracy. I also believe we are at our strongest when we can care and maintain respect for each other. This is how we can make our most important decisions in life.
Again I will still be writing my daily articles that I started 25 years ago BUT they will only be available for 48 hours before they are removed. In this way I hope to continue my mission to help you take control of your health – but it's up to you to download, share and repost this content. I will not be enforcing my copyright on this information so that you may freely share it.
Please also encourage others to read "The Truth About COVID-19," where you will find much of the information from the past two years that people need to read to wake up and open their eyes. I am donating all earnings to the National Vaccine Information Center.
I want to thank all of you that have supported me over the years. I hope you can understand why I have decided to make this dramatic decision and hope the remaining ephemeral articles will be useful for those who wish to read them.
We will continue through these challenging times together, and remember this:
Your body was designed to stay healthy.
You hold in your hands the power to take control of your health.
Never let anyone take your right to health away from you.
In the July 22, 2021, article,1 “Did Scientists Stifle the Lab-Leak Theory,” foreign reporter and columnist for Unherd, Ian Birrell, analyzes the circumstances that led to a near-complete blackout of questions about SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
In September 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board issued a warning that a new infectious disease was poised to spread around the world, and that nations were ill prepared for such an event.
The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board is a joint arm of the World Health Organization and the World Bank — two technocratic entities that aren’t always working in the best interest of humanity as a whole.
On the 15-person Board are Sir Jeremy Farrar (director of the Wellcome Trust), Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID) and George Fu Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
As noted by Birrell, the board’s warning was “astonishingly prescient,” as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in December 2020. Importantly, the board did not necessarily focus its prediction on the emergence of natural zoonotic diseases but, rather, warned of technological and scientific advances that “allow for disease-creating micro-organisms to be engineered or recreated in laboratories.”
According to the board, accidental release of such manmade organisms could actually be far more devastating than a natural outbreak. “Accidental or deliberate events caused by high-impact respiratory pathogens pose global catastrophic biological risks,” the board stated in its September 2019 report, titled “A World At Risk.”2 In passing, the report also mentioned the need to control the flow of information:
“A deliberate release would complicate outbreak response; in addition to the need to decide how to counter the pathogen, security measures would come into play limiting information-sharing and fomenting social divisions.”
Despite the Board’s recognition that manmade pathogens pose a significant threat, some of its board members — Fauci and Farrar in particular — have played central roles in roundly dismissing the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab. As reported by Birrell:3
“Farrar was a central figure behind two landmark documents published by influential science journals that played a key role in shutting down discussion of the lab leak hypothesis by branding it conspiracy theory.
These statements, signed and promoted by leading figures in the scientific establishment, pushed an idea that the pandemic was a natural occurrence by arguing against the plausibility of ‘any type of laboratory-based scenario.’ Critics say this ‘false narrative’ set back understanding of the disease for more than a year.”
In his book, “Spike: The Virus vs. The People — the Inside Story,” Farrar praises China for its pandemic response at the outset of the pandemic. This despite the fact that the Communist dictatorship is known to have silenced doctors who wanted to warn the public, and allowed the annual Chinese New Year’s celebration to proceed, thereby ensuring massive spread as people from all parts of China and across the world gathered.
Birrell goes on to detail how Farrar and Fauci reacted to early reports suggesting the virus had telltale signs of gain-of-function. Emails4 obtained via freedom of information act (FOIA) requests reveal Fauci received a Science magazine article detailing the work of Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance) and Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
“The article discussed controversies over risky ‘gain of function’ experiments, including mention of a 2015 paper by Shi and a U.S. expert on modification of a Sars-like bat virus to boost infectivity to humans,” Birrell writes.5
“Emails released through freedom of information requests show Fauci instantly circulated the article to U.S. officials and contacted Farrar saying it was ‘of interest to the current discussion’ …
[Scripps virologist Kristian] Andersen, when sent the Science article at the end of January, admitted a close look at the genetic sequences of Sars-CoV-2 showed that ‘some of the features (potentially) look engineered’ and that other experts agreed the genome was ‘inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory’ …
The Wellcome boss then set up a conference call for the pair of them with 11 other experts from around the world, warning their discussions were ‘in total confidence’ and information ‘not to be shared’ without prior agreement.
Farrar also sent Fauci a link to an article on ZeroHedge … that tied a Wuhan researcher to the virus outbreak. The site was banned the next day from Twitter …”
While we don’t know the full details of what was discussed during that February 1, 2020, phone call, Birrell points out what we do know. For example, we know they discussed contacting the WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and that two days later, Ghebreyesus made a public call for censorship of misinformation.
Five days after that call, Daszak also circulated the first draft of a scientific consensus statement6 that eventually got published in The Lancet, and thereafter was used by mainstream media and fact checkers everywhere to “debunk” any and all evidence of a lab leak.
The statement, signed by 27 experts, including Farrar, condemned “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” A FOIA request revealed Daszak was the mastermind behind that Lancet statement7 — which, by the way, presented no actual evidence of natural origin — and that he wanted to make sure it could not be identified as being from a single individual or organization.
Six weeks after Farrar’s group call, four of the participants on the call — including Andersen — also published a commentary in Nature Medicine, titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,”8 in which they stated they “do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”
“This statement in a world-renowned journal, which has been accessed 5.5 million times, further depressed debate of alternative theories on the origins, despite being challenged by a few brave voices in the scientific community,” Birrell writes.9
In his book, “Spike,” which was published July 22, 2021, Farrar admits he had deep concerns about the “huge coincidence” of SARS-CoV-2 emerging in a city with a biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory that just so happens to specialize in collection, storage and research of bat coronaviruses. Birrell writes:
“The new coronavirus ‘might not even be that novel at all,’ he thought. ‘It might have been engineered years ago, put in a freezer, and then taken out more recently by someone who decided to work on it again. And then, maybe, there was … an accident?’
He was so concerned that he confided in Eliza Manningham-Buller, then the Wellcome Trust chair and a former head of the MI5 intelligence service, who told him to start taking precautions such as avoiding putting things in emails and using a burner phone for key conversations.
So what changed his mind so firmly he started signing letters and tweeting about alleged conspiracy theories? When I asked Farrar to share the evidence that set his mind at rest, he pointed to the Nature Medicine article. Yet his office told me later he helped ‘convene’ these five authors.
They also insist that ‘the weight of available data and scientific evidence continues to point towards zoonotic origins.’
But scientists have found no hard evidence on the pandemic origins, despite testing 80,000 samples on animals to find a natural link, while China has made increasingly ludicrous claims over the origins as well as covering up the outbreak, lying over the date of first cases and taking offline Wuhan’s key database of samples and viral sequences.”
In his book, Farrar also discusses specific concerns brought forth by Andersen in January 2020. Recall, in April 2020, Andersen published “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” with four other co-authors. But in January, three things alarmed him about the virus:
Before Farrar’s February 1, 2020, call, Andersen was “60 to 70%” convinced SARS-CoV-2 was a lab creation, according to Farrar’s account. Yet Andersen also told Farrar he did not want to be a front man for the lab leak theory. Birrell writes:10
“Anderson told [Farrar] that he suddenly realized he might be the person who proved the new virus came from a lab. ’I didn’t necessarily want to be that person,’ he said.
‘When you make big claims like that you had better be sure that you can conclude something is based on evidence and not on speculation.’ So according to Farrar, then five experts wrestled with the evidence and, the following month, they declared in Nature Medicine that Sars-CoV-2 was ‘not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus’ …
They offered the circumstantial evidence that RaTG13, the closest known coronavirus to Sars-CoV-2, had different binding mechanisms — yet similar ones were found on pangolins, so ‘the ingredients … were out in the wild. They did not need to have escaped, or been unleashed, from a containment lab.’”
The problem with this argument is that they have no firm evidence of natural emergence. What’s more, while Andersen and co-authors claim they spent many sleepless nights carefully analyzing and evaluating the lab leak theory before finally dismissing it, in a May 2021 interview,11 co-author Robert Garry admitted the first draft of the Nature Medicine paper was finished February 1, 2020 — the day of Farrar’s conference call, which included four of the five co-authors.
Fauci’s email trove also reveals Farrar sent Fauci a rough draft of the Nature Medicine paper three days after that conference call, urging him to keep it confidential. That same day, Andersen also told another group of experts that the data “conclusively show” there was no engineering involved. “So far from having ‘many sleepless nights,’ these scientists seem to have changed their minds amazingly fast and reached fresh conclusions,” Birrell writes.
Another article addressing the subversion of truth by some of our most trusted scientific institutions is James Meigs’ Commentary piece, “The Lab-Leak-Theory Cover-Up.”12
“The dam is breaking,” Meigs writes. “And with the surging floodwaters, comes a stunning realization: Almost across the board, our elite institutions got the most important question about COVID wrong.
Worse, they worked furiously to discourage anyone else from getting it right. The leading scientific experts turned out to be spinning the truth. Our public-health officials put their political agenda ahead of any scientific mandate.
And the press and social-media giants eagerly played along, enforcing strict rules about which COVID topics were acceptable and which had to be banished from the national conversation.
During the Trump years, we heard a lot of hand-wringing about the public’s unwarranted ‘distrust’ of our society’s designated experts and leaders. But to be trusted, people and institutions have to be trustworthy.
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a profound corruption at the heart of our expert class. The impact of that revelation will reverberate for years to come.”
As noted by Meigs, leading institutions not only declared the lab-leak theory incorrect, but also “dangerous and malicious,” and went to extraordinary lengths to “protect” the population from hearing anything that might infect their minds with such wrongthink.
In the end, all such efforts failed. Despite the ridicule, personal attacks and censorship, common sense and logic have managed to break through and, today, the failures of our most prestigious science institutions are laid bare.
The lab-leak question has also revealed corruption within other cherished institutions, such as the U.S. intelligence community. Two separate teams, one in the State Department and another under direction of the National Security Council, have been tasked with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
In Commentary, Meigs points out that both teams report facing intense internal pushback, according to Vanity Fair reporter Katherine Eban. Their own institutions urged them “not to open a ‘Pandora’s Box,’” which suggests the State Department and the NSC aren’t particularly interested in the truth. Of particular concern was the role the U.S. government may have played by funding gain-of-funding research on bat coronaviruses at the WIV.
While the ramifications of the truth might be extremely uncomfortable for some, if we allow individuals to shirk responsibility, the ramifications of that course of action could ultimately turn out to be lethal for mankind.
If U.S. institutions such as the NIAID funded gain-of-function research that resulted in a pandemic, we need to know, so we can close loopholes and implement better safeguards. I’ve argued that gain-of-function research that makes pathogens more dangerous to humans ought to be banned altogether, to prevent the creation of a truly lethal pandemic.
But even if we don’t ban it, we need to know what government agencies have been doing with our tax dollars, and decide whether they’ve been put to good use or not. In my opinion, creating pathogens capable of killing us is hardly a good use of our taxes, and should be stopped.
Most people want to trust government, academic and scientific institutions, and the media. Unfortunately, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that these institutions aren’t worthy of unequivocal trust.
They say they’re trustworthy, and they insist we must trust them, but their actions tell a different story. The pandemic has also shown us just how important it is for investigators, researchers and reporters to be truly independent. As noted by Meigs:13
“The story of why the line of inquiry survived is not an account of leading scientists and health organizations dutifully parsing the evidence.
Instead, it is largely the story of little-known researchers — many working outside the bounds of elite institutions — who didn’t let the political implications of their findings derail their efforts.
Much of what we know today about the Wuhan Institute’s risky research is thanks to these independent skeptics who challenged the institutional consensus. Some risked their careers to do so.”
One key group of self-organized researchers is the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 (DRASTIC). They’ve made a number of important discoveries that have kept the lab-leak theory alive.
“Throughout the pandemic we’ve often heard admonitions to ‘follow the science.’ Looking back we can see that few scientists — and even fewer journalists — really did,” Meigs notes. Among the few journalists who did tackle the elephant in the room were former New York Times reporters Nicholas Wade and Donald McNeil Jr.
“Notice the irony here: While two refugees from the New York Times were publishing deep, well-reported articles on an alternative outlet, the Times itself was still mostly ignoring the Wuhan-lab story,” Meigs writes.14
“One of its current pandemic specialists, Apoorva Mandavilli, was on Twitter urging everyone to ‘stop talking about the lab leak’ … When the pandemic hit last year, we were all urged to fall in line and listen to the authorities. Scientists and bureaucrats were elevated to near-divine status.
‘Let us pray, now, for science,’ Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo wrote last February. ‘Pray for reason, rigor and expertise … Pray for the N.I.H. and the C.D.C. Pray for the W.H.O.’ Now the public is waking up to the fact that, prayers notwithstanding, those institutions largely failed us.
The WHO kowtowed to China’s deceptions. Anthony Fauci trimmed his public statements to fit the prevailing political winds. Some of the nation’s top virologists didn’t just dismiss the lab-leak possibility, they appeared to be covering up their own involvement with Wuhan gain-of-function research.
Journalists and social-media companies conspired to suppress legitimate questions about a disease that was killing thousands of Americans each day.”
While we certainly need expertise, as Meigs points out, we must also be able to trust our experts, and the only way for trust to rebuild, experts must act from a strong ethical foundation, and be held responsible for dangerous failures.
“If the public concludes that COVID-19 was, in effect, an inside job, the political fallout could last a generation,” Meigs writes.15 “I don’t mean people will believe the virus was deliberately released … but that they will see the disease as a product of an elite power structure that behaves recklessly and evades responsibility.”
What makes the situation so problematic is that it’s not just one type of institution that is behaving recklessly and shirking responsibility. It’s not just the legacy media, or academia, or government, or public health, the intelligence apparatus, Big Tech, Big Pharma or the medical journal system. It’s all of them.
Continuing along that same line of reasoning, a July 27, 2021, Spectator article16 by Stuart Ritchie reviews the unhealthy relationship between The Lancet and China, and its role in thwarting scientific investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Ritchie points out how The Lancet’s editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, has routinely defended China’s actions:
“It’s not just the scientists and health workers of China that the Lancet has praised. In May last year, Horton appeared on the state-owned broadcaster China Central Television to praise how ‘tremendously decisively’ the Chinese Communist party had handled the pandemic. He also penned multiple editorials about China, including one entitled ‘Covid-19 and the Dangers of Sinophobia.’”
Ritchie also stresses that “some of the most famous stories of scientific fraud have originated at The Lancet during Horton’s tenure as editor,” including, most recently, fraudulent papers proclaiming to show that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when used in COVID-19 patients, and Daszak’s “scientific statement” condemning the lab leak theory as wild conspiracy theory.
“The purpose of the Lancet, back in 1823, was to slice away the immorality and complacency of the medical establishment … [Lancet founder Thomas] Wakley would have been stunned to see that his journal now exemplifies that establishment,” Ritchie writes.17 “It embodies an unaccountable or only partially accountable elite that does often make progress, but fails abjectly to face up to its many faults.
In 2021, we might find that the best rejoinder to our establishment isn’t a new Wakley-style journal, but an entirely new way to think about science and how it’s published: a way that doesn’t hand over all our trust to editors and reviewers, but that emphasizes openness and transparency right from the start.
There are several proposals for how it could happen. The next rotten thing that needs to be cut away could be the journal system — and the Lancet itself.”
The censorship rolled out during the COVID pandemic has revealed a disconcerting truth, namely that corruption and collusion are rampant everywhere. By the looks of it, we need to do a clean sweep across the board, and that will require time, effort, and most of all, open public discussion.
In closing, I strongly recommend listening to Dr. David Martin’s explanation of antitrust law in the video below, and how, in the case of a criminal conspiracy, liability shielding evaporates.
In his view, having reviewed the evidence, there’s no doubt that the NIH/NIAID, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ATI, Moderna and Pfizer are guilty of criminal conspiracy (the legal definition thereof) and premeditative antitrust violations.
Without that criminal conspiracy and their premeditative acts, we would not be in the situation we’re in now, where censorship and pandemic measures and rules are putting the public health, well-being and sanity at risk. Unfortunately, while there is, theoretically, a legal way out of this pandemic, deep cracks in our justice system has also been exposed over the past year and a half.
Martin is currently struggling to find a state attorney general willing to pursue these violations so that we can bring this faux pandemic to a close. Hopefully, once enough people understand the illegality of the situation, someone will have the courage to step up to the plate.
A recent study published by King's College in London, which operates the ZOE COVID Study app to monitor COVID infection and vaccination rates, found that, as of July 15, 2021, there was an average of 15,537 new daily symptomatic cases COVID-19 among partly or fully vaccinated people in the United Kingdom—an increase of 40 percent from the previous week's total of 11,084 new cases.1,2
The Zoe COVID Study, led by epidemiologist Tim Spector, MD, of Kings College in London, estimated that there were 17,581 new daily symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in unvaccinated people, or 22 percent less than the previous week's total of 22,638 new cases.
According to a press release issued by the study's authors, "With cases in the vaccinated group continuing to rise, the number of new cases in the vaccinated population is set to overtake the unvaccinated in the coming days."3,4
On July 17, the U.K.'s Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, announced he had tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus despite having received two doses of the AstraZeneca/Oxford University's experimental AZD1222 COVID vaccine on Mar. 17 and May 16.5 In a message posted on Twitter, Javid wrote:
"This morning I tested positive for COVID. I'm waiting for my PCR result, but thankfully I have had my jabs and symptoms are mild."6
With a population of more than 66 million people, two-thirds of adults in the U.K. have received COVID-19 vaccine, representing a total of 82,592,996 vaccinations as of July 20. Some 46,349,709 Britons have received the first dose and 36,243,287 have gotten the second dose. The country is not vaccinating children.7
The U.K. is among the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, but it is experiencing a third wave of coronavirus infections reportedly largely due to the spread of the Delta variant of the virus.8,9 Other highly vaccinated countries like Israel are also experiencing a new wave of coronavirus infections due to the Delta variant.
In Israel, about 60 percent of the country's population of 9.3 million has received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine. About 85 percent of adults in Israel have been vaccinated. Yet most of the new coronavirus infections are occurring in vaccinated people.10
In early-July, former Health Minister Chezy Levy, MD confirmed that "55 percent of the newly infected [people in Israel] had been vaccinated."11
There has also been a concerning rise in the number of vaccinated people in Israel being hospitalized. An article in The Jerusalem Post last week noted that the Israeli Health Ministry reported 124 people had been hospitalized for COVID-19 on July 20 and that 65 percent of them were fully vaccinated. Of the 124 people, 62 were in serious condition and 70% of those patients were fully vaccinated.12
Earlier this month, the Health Ministry estimated that the Pfizer/BioNTech's BNT162b2 COVID biologic was only 64 percent effective in preventing symptomatic infections of COVID-19, specifically those caused by the Delta variant. But the effectiveness rate for Pfizer's experimental COVID vaccine in preventing infection (and transmission) could be lower.13
"We do not know exactly to what degree the vaccine helps, but it is significantly less," said Israel's Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.14
Another example of a highly vaccinated country which has been experiencing a new outbreak of coronavirus infections mostly among its vaccinated population is Chile. Of the thousands of new coronavirus cases being reported daily in that country, 80 percent of them are in vaccinated people. Chile has fully vaccinated 55 percent of its population.15
The examples of the U.K., Israel and Chile, as well as other highly vaccinated countries like the Seychelles and Mongolia experiencing coronavirus infections mostly within the vaccinated segments of their populations pose a dilemma.16 The governments of these countries have to decide if the problem is that not enough of their people have been vaccinated, or that the vaccines are simply not as effective as initially assumed they would be.
There is also a third possible problem which was raised by French virologist and Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier, MD in May 2021. In an interview with Pierre Barnérias of Hold-Up Media, Dr. Montagnier said he believed that the mass vaccination programs for COVID may actually be causing SARS-CoV-2 mutations like the Delta variant and, thus, prolonging the pandemic.17
Dr. Montagnier explained that in each country that undertakes a mass vaccination campaign, "the curve of vaccinations is followed by the curve of deaths." He said that the COVID vaccines create antibodies that force the virus to "find another solution" or "die," adding that it is the variants that "are a production and result from the vaccination."18
Dr. Montagnier's views are admittedly controversial. The thought that vaccinations may actually be exacerbating the COVID pandemic is perhaps too difficult a concept for government officials to consider. But this possibility should not be dismissed outright.
One of the best explanations of this dynamic was given by Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) in a 2011 interview when she described the evolution of pertussis bacteria to evade the vaccines:
"[E]very life form wants to live, wants to survive. Universal principle. And viruses and bacteria are no exception. And when you put a pressure on a virus or bacteria that's circulating, with the use of a vaccine that contains a lab-altered form of that virus or bacteria, it doesn't seem that it would be illogical to understand that that organism is going to fight to survive, it's going to find a way to adapt in order to survive."19
Vaccine makers have nothing to lose by marketing their experimental COVID-19 shots, even if they cause serious injury and death, as they enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from COVID-19 vaccines or any other pandemic vaccine under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in the U.S. in 2005.
The full extent of their COVID-19 vaccine indemnification agreements with countries, however, is a closely guarded secret, one that has remained highly confidential — until now. A leaked document broken down by Twitter user Ehden reveals the shocking terms of Pfizer’s international COVID-19 vaccine agreements.1
“These agreements are confidential, but luckily one country did not protect the contract document well enough, so I managed to get a hold of a copy,” he wrote. “As you are about to see, there is a good reason why Pfizer was fighting to hide the details of these contracts.”2
The alleged indemnification agreement, reportedly between Pfizer and Albania, was originally posted in snippets on Twitter, but Twitter now has them marked as “unavailable.” Copies of the tweets are available on Threadreader,3 however.
The Albania agreement4 appears very similar to another contract, published online, between Pfizer and the Dominican Republic.5 It covers not only COVID-19 vaccines, but any product that enhances the use or effects of such vaccines.
Countries that purchase Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot must acknowledge that “Pfizer’s efforts to develop and manufacture the Product” are “subject to significant risks and uncertainties.”6
And in the event that a drug or other treatment comes out that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19, the agreement stands, and the country must follow through with their order. Ivermectin, for instance, is not only safe, inexpensive and widely available but has been found to reduce COVID-19 mortality by 81%.7 Yet, it continues to be ignored in favor of more expensive, and less effective, treatments and mass experimental vaccination.
“If you were wondering why #Ivermectin was suppressed,” Ehden wrote, “well, it is because the agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID19 the contract cannot be voided.”8
Even if Pfizer fails to deliver vaccine doses within their estimated delivery period, the purchaser may not cancel the order. Further, Pfizer can make adjustments to the number of contracted doses and their delivery schedule, “based on principles to be determined by Pfizer,” and the country buying the vaccines must “agree to any revision.”9
It doesn’t matter if the vaccines are delivered severely late, even at a point when they’re no longer needed, as it’s made clear that “Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties.”10 As you might suspect, the contract also forbids returns “under any circumstances.”
While COVID-19 vaccines are “free” to receive in the U.S., they’re being paid for by taxpayer dollars at a rate of $19.5011 per dose. Albania, the leaked contract revealed, paid $12 per dose,12 while the EU paid $14.70 per shot.13 While charging different prices to different purchases is common in the drug industry, it’s often frowned upon.
In the case of the price disparity between the U.S. and the EU, Pfizer is said to have given a price break to the EU because it financially supported the development of their COVID-19 vaccine.14 Still, Ehden noted, “U.S. taxpayers got screwed by Pfizer, probably also Israel.”15 Also, Pfizer makes a point to note that countries have no right to withhold payment to the company for any reason.16
Apparently, this includes in the case of receiving damaged goods. Purchasers of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines are not entitled to reject them “based on service complaints,” unless they do not conform to specifications or the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations.17 And, Ehden adds, “This agreement is above any local law of the state.”18
While the purchaser has virtually no way of canceling the contract, Pfizer can terminate the agreement in the event of a “material breach” of any term in their contract.
The purchaser of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine must also acknowledge two facts that have largely been brushed under the rug: Both their efficacy and risks are unknown. According to section 5.5 of the contract:19
“Purchaser acknowledges that the Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the Vaccine to Purchaser under this Agreement.
Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”
Indemnification by the purchaser is also explicitly required by the contract, which states, under section 8.1:20
“Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech, each of their Affiliates, contractors, sub-contractors, licensors, licensees, sub-licensees, distributors, contract manufacturers, services providers, clinical trial researchers, third parties to whom Pfizer or BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates may directly or indirectly owe an indemnity based on the research …
from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses of an investigation or litigation … arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine …”
Meanwhile, the purchaser must also keep the terms of the contract confidential for a period 10 years.21
Not only does Pfizer have total indemnification, but there’s also a section in the contract titled, “Assumption of Defense by Purchaser,” which states that in the event Pfizer suffers losses for which it is seeking indemnification, the purchaser “shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of the Indemnitee with counsel acceptable to Indemnitee(s), whether or not the Indemnified Claim is rightfully brought.” Ehden notes:22
“Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything: ‘Costs and expenses, including ... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser.’”
Buried in the March 17, 2020, Federal Register — the daily journal of the U.S. government — in a document titled, “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19,”23 is language that establishes a new COVID-19 vaccine court — similar to the federal vaccine court that already exists.
In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured by a COVID vaccine (or a select group of other vaccines designated under the act), you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),24 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,25 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.
The CICP also has a one-year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly, which is also difficult since it’s unknown if long-term effects could occur more than a year later.
As is apparent in Pfizer’s confidential contract with Albania, the drug giant wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it. Pfizer has also demanded that countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation.26
New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION) reported in February 2021 that Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” The demands included that Brazil:27
STAT News also referred to concerns by legal experts, who also suggested Pfizer’s demands were an abuse of power. Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, told STAT:28
“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”
Pfizer continues to sign lucrative secret vaccine deals across the globe. In June 2021, they signed one of their biggest contracts to date — with the Philippine government for 40 million doses.29
Meanwhile, COVID-19 “breakthrough cases,” which used to be called vaccine failures, are on the rise. According to the U.S. CDC, as of July 19, 2021, 5,914 people who had been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 were hospitalized or died from COVID-19.30
In the U.K., as of July 15, 87.5% of the adult population had received one dose31 of COVID-19 vaccine and 67.1% had received two. Yet, symptomatic cases among partially and fully vaccinated are on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before.32
In a July 19 report from the CDC, the agency also reported that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine33 — more than doubling from the 6,079 reports of death from the week before.
Soon after the report, however, they reverted the number to the 6,079 from the week before, indicating by default that no deaths from the vaccine had occurred that week,34 raising serious questions about transparency and vaccine safety.
Many other adverse events are also appearing, ranging from risks from the biologically active SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the vaccine to blood clots, reproductive toxicity35 and myocarditis (heart inflammation).36 As you can see in the confidential indemnification agreements, however, even if the vaccine turns out to be a dismal failure — and a risk to short- and long-term health — countries have no recourse, nor does anyone who received the experimental shots.
One question that we should all be asking is this: If the COVID-19 vaccines are, in fact, as safe and effective as the manufacturers claim, why do they require this level of indemnification?
July 24, 2021, The New York Times upped the ante on the dark money witch hunt against critical thinkers by publishing an article1 that states I am “The Most Influential Spreader of Coronavirus Misinformation Online.” The article was also republished in many other media outlets; it reads, in part:2
"Researchers and regulators say Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, creates and profits from misleading claims about Covid-19 vaccines …
'Mercola is the pioneer of the anti-vaccine movement,' said Kolina Koltai, a researcher at the University of Washington who studies online conspiracy theories. 'He's a master of capitalizing on periods of uncertainty, like the pandemic, to grow his movement' …
President Biden has blamed online falsehoods for causing people to refrain from getting the injections. But even as Mr. Biden has urged social media companies to 'do something about the misinformation,' Dr. Mercola shows the difficulty of that task …
And rather than directly stating online that vaccines don't work, Dr. Mercola's posts often ask pointed questions about their safety and discuss studies that other doctors have refuted. Facebook and Twitter have allowed some of his posts to remain up with caution labels, and the companies have struggled to create rules to pull down posts that have nuance …
Dr. Mercola has appeared more approachable because he takes less radical positions than his peers, Ms. Koltai said. 'He takes away from the idea that an anti-vaccination activist is a fringe person,' she said."
Perhaps the most telling part of this slanderous piece is that next-to-last paragraph: "[R]ather than directly stating online that vaccines don't work, Dr. Mercola's posts often ask pointed questions about their safety and discuss studies …" What a sad commentary of the progressive censorship that simply forbids anything that contradicts the CDC and WHO.
In response to the accusation that I'm the No. 1 spreader of vaccine misinformation, I told the author, Sheera Frenkel, that I have a hard time understanding how I could possibly undermine Biden's multibillion-dollar vaccination campaign when many of my Facebook posts only receive a few hundred likes or shares. And even though we have 1.7 million followers, FB has throttled our reach to less than 1% of them, and 99% never see them.
Any reporter can easily check my social media accounts and see the modest interactions, as well as the accuracy of all posts that somehow categorize me as a "superspreader of misinformation."
I also told her that as the lead author of a peer reviewed publication on vitamin D and the risk of COVID-19, I have every right to inform the public of my medical research. As a licensed medical professional, I also have the right to bring attention to other studies that mainstream media ignores, misrepresents or censors completely.
Frenkel went on to claim she was "unable to verify" that I had indeed published said paper, despite the fact that I supplied her the direct link to the paper. Verifying my claim can also be done in seconds simply by going to PubMed.gov and typing in "Mercola." My peer reviewed study3 pops right up as the first result available. It's published in the journal Nutrients, but you don't need to know that in order to find it.
The NYT deploys the strategy of publishing discrediting narratives based on bold lies first, only to later issue corrections that are buried and virtually no one ever sees. Case in point: They recently corrected an article by Jeremy W. Peters in which he defamed and made false statements about investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson,4 but the correction came only after she hired a law firm to pursue legal redress.5
According to Attkisson, Peters "deceptively altered a quote and included fabricated and false information and implications. He also violated New York Times policy by failing to contact me for comment prior to publication."
July 26, 2021, I sent Frenkel at the NYT a legal notice demanding a retraction of her article due to the falsehoods in it.6 For example, Frenkel claimed the Food and Drug Administration has levied multimillion-dollar fines against me. This is a complete fabrication, as the FDA has never fined me a dime.
As just discussed, Frenkel also implied that I misrepresent myself as a published author of a paper on vitamin D for COVID-19 by stating she was "unable to verify" my claim, despite being given a direct link to the paper.
Frenkel boldly claims that I am the No.1 spreader of misinformation online, but she doesn't qualify what "misinformation" actually is. Without qualifying what it is you're looking for, how can you quantify it?
She also provides no proof that I in fact have the greatest reach of all personalities reporting on COVID injections. Below is a Crowdtangle search for Facebook posts in the U.S. mentioning "vaccine," "vaccines" or "vaccinated" from mid-June to mid-July 2021, by the FWIW newsletter.7
I didn't even make this list, so how is it that I'm dubbed the "No. 1" spreader of vaccine misinformation online? Second on the list is the mainstream news outlet ABC World News Tonight. Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson — whose online audience is far larger than mine — is also on the list at No. 13.
Most of the other people named by our sitting president have little to no reach — I would venture to say a far majority of people have never heard of them. Yet, just 12 people spread two-thirds of all "vaccine misinformation" without penalty from the highly sensitive media controllers at Twitter and Facebook?
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a “foreign dark money group,” to quote Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley,8 sprang out of nowhere to create lists of people to be deplatformed and censored into oblivion. But why is no reporter asking about the center’s funding, of the citing partner in this group that I’ll go into more depth on later in this article — AntiVaxWatch.org?
The report itself says the list of individuals was predetermined. From the outset, the dozen individuals were selected (page 6).
According to Hawley, before the CCDH started attacking individuals for speaking out about COVID jab dangers, this one-man outfit tried to get a number of conservative websites and news organizations banned and deplatformed.
"Who is funding this overseas dark money group — Big Tech? Billionaire activists? Foreign governments? We have no idea," Hawley said in a July 20, 2021, tweet,9 adding "Americans deserve to know what foreign interests are attempting to influence American democracy."
If you ask me, the "misinformation dozen" is only the beginning. It's much easier to target and take down individuals with relatively little power than entire news networks. But eventually, you can be assured that Fox and any other CDC and vaccine dissenters will come into their crosshairs. At that point, we'll find out just how far the Biden administration is willing to go with this totalitarian crackdown on information.
There's no doubt in my mind that the CCDH was created for the purpose of political hit jobs. Its chairman, Simon Clark, is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress,10 which is funded by dark money from a liberal Swiss billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss.11,12 Wyss is also a board member of the Center for American Progress. As reported by Capital Research:13
"[Wyss has] declined to tell even the New York Times whether he holds U.S. citizenship and as recently as 2014 stated that he does not hold a green card granting permanent residency.
In 2016 he got into trouble when it was revealed that Wyss had contributed $41,000 to Democratic political action committees (PACs) in violation of the federal government's strict ban on foreign nationals giving to U.S. political campaigns.
This foreign national has also donated at least $1 million through his foundation to States Newsroom since 2018, a bundle of partisan attack sites posing as impartial news outlets spawned by Washington, D.C., consultants Arabella Advisors."
According to Capital Research, through his funding of Arabella, Wyss has helped Democrats "win elections and enact policy."14 InfluenceWatch describes the links between Wyss and Arabella as follows:15
"Arabella and its nonprofit network have been criticized as 'dark money' funders both for channeling hundreds of millions of dollars to left-wing organizations and for hosting hundreds of 'pop-up groups' — websites designed to look like standalone nonprofits that are really projects of an Arabella-run nonprofit.
In April 2021, the New York Times criticized Arabella's 'system of political financing, which often obscures the identities of donors,' as 'dark money,' calling the network 'a leading vehicle for it on the Left.'
In May 2021, the New York Times criticized Arabella's New Venture Fund and its 501(c)(4) 'sister' nonprofit, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, for their close ties to and funding from the foreign-funded Wyss Foundation, calling Sixteen Thirty Fund one of the 'leading dark money spenders on the Left' responsible for distributing more than $63 million in super PAC donations that hurt Republicans and aided Democrats in the 2020 election …"
Arabella is founded by Eric Kessler, who during the Clinton administration worked for the secretary of the interior, Bruce Babbit. During that time, Molly McUsic, current president of the Wyss Foundation, also worked for Babbit.16 At least one former Wyss Foundation staffer now also works for Arabella.
Reporter Hayden Lidwig has also described the inner workings of Arabella Advisors and the influence of the "dark money" flowing through it:17
"My colleagues and I at the Capital Research Center have studied the Arabella network for over two years. Here's how it works.
Arabella's nonprofits act as the left's premier pass-through funders for professional activists. Big foundations—including the Gates, Buffett, and Ford Foundations—have laundered billions of dollars through this network, washing their identities from the dollars that go to push radical policies on America.
But the real juice from these nonprofits comes from the vast array of 'pop-up groups' they run—called so because they consist almost solely of slick websites that may pop into existence one day and pop out the next, usually once the campaign is through. We've counted over 350 such front groups pushing everything from federal funding of abortion to overhauling Obamacare to packing the Supreme Court.
Arabella is as dark as 'dark money' gets. It's also the prime example of liberal hypocrisy over anonymous political spending, operating in nearly total obscurity from the mainstream media, liberal dark money hawks like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), or even the conservative movement, from 2005 until 2019, when the Capital Research Center yanked it into the spotlight.
As more of this massive web of groups—responsible for churning out nearly $2.5 billion since its creation—has come into focus, one thing's become clear: When a special interest donor goes to Arabella, they're expecting a political payoff."
The talk of pop-up groups makes me think of the group I mentioned earlier, AntivaxWatch.org,18 which has no public face and no founding or funding information of any kind. It's just an anonymously created organization that claims to be "an alliance of concerned individuals who are seeking to educate the American public about the dangers of the anti-vax industry" that links to articles and reports by the likes of the CCDH and other extremist vaccine pushers.
Is AntivaxWatch an Arabella creation? Might the CCDH be funded by Arabella too? I don't know, but both fit the pattern of the kind of outfits Arabella's "dark money" creates and supports. Hopefully, in time we'll be able to determine what the truth of the matter is.
Now that we’re more than a year into the pandemic, it’s crystal clear that the panic that ensued was unnecessary and the draconian measures put into place for public health were unwarranted and harmful.
John Tierney, a contributing science columnist for The New York Times, looked back over the pandemic, providing a timeline of the media-induced viral panic that led to censorship and suppression of scientific research on an unprecedented scale.
In his article for City Journal, he explained that the “moral panic that swept the nation’s guiding institutions” during the pandemic was far more catastrophic than the viral pandemic itself.1
The panic was started by journalists beginning in March 2020, when the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team released “Report 9” on the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPSs) to reduce deaths and health care demand from COVID-19.2
The report’s computer model projected that intensive care units in the U.S. would be overrun, with 30 COVID-19 patients for every available bed, and 2.2 million dead by summer.3 They concluded that “epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time,”4 which led to lockdowns, business and school closures and population-wide social distancing. But as Tierney noted:5
“What had originally been a limited lockdown — ‘15 days to slow the spread’ — became long-term policy across much of the United States and the world.
A few scientists and public-health experts objected, noting that an extended lockdown was a novel strategy of unknown effectiveness that had been rejected in previous plans for a pandemic. It was a dangerous experiment being conducted without knowing the answer to the most basic question: Just how lethal is this virus?”
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford, was an early critic of the response, who argued that long-term lockdowns could cause more harm than good.6 Ioannidis came under intense fire after he and colleagues revealed that the COVID-19 fatality rate for those under the age of 45 is “almost zero,” and between the ages of 45 and 70, it’s somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3%.7
In Santa Clara County, in particular, he and colleagues estimated that in late March 2020, the local COVID infection fatality rate was just 0.17%.8 “But merely by reporting data that didn’t fit the official panic narrative, they became targets,” Tierney explained. “… Mainstream journalists piled on with hit pieces quoting critics and accusing the researchers of endangering lives by questioning lockdowns.”9
The discrediting and censorship of researchers who spoke out against the official narrative — even if they included supportive data — became a common and alarming theme over the last year, one that extended to virtually every aspect of pandemic-related policy, including masks.
The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,10 found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.
Initially, numerous research journals refused to publish the results, which called widespread mask mandates into question. Tierney said:11
“When Thomas Benfield, one of the researchers in Denmark conducting the first large randomized controlled trial of mask efficacy against Covid, was asked why they were taking so long to publish the much-anticipated findings, he promised them as ‘as soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.’
After being rejected by The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA, the study finally appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the reason for the editors’ reluctance became clear: the study showed that a mask did not protect the wearer, which contradicted claims by the Centers for Disease Control and other health authorities.”
A similar experience was had by Dr. Stefan Baral, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist with 350 publications, who wanted to publish a critique of lockdowns. It became the “first time in my career that I could not get a piece placed anywhere,” he told Tierney. Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff also wrote a paper against lockdowns and couldn’t get it published, noting that most other scientists he spoke to were also against them but were afraid to speak up.
Kulldorff and colleagues soon banded together to write the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection” of the elderly and those in nursing homes and hospitals, while allowing businesses and schools to remain open. Soon after, they too were attacked:12
“They managed to attract attention but not the kind they hoped for. Though tens of thousands of other scientists and doctors went on to sign the declaration, the press caricatured it as a deadly ‘let it rip’ strategy and an ‘ethical nightmare’ from ‘Covid deniers’ and ‘agents of misinformation.’”
Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford’s Hoover Institution was another common target, as he also suggested that protections should be focused on nursing homes and lockdowns would take more lives than COVID-19. According to Tierney:13
“When he joined the White House coronavirus task force, Bill Gates derided him as ‘this Stanford guy with no background’ promoting ‘crackpot theories.’ Nearly 100 members of Stanford’s faculty signed a letter denouncing his ‘falsehoods and misrepresentations of science,’ and an editorial in the Stanford Daily urged the university to sever its ties to Hoover.
The Stanford faculty senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn Atlas’s actions as ‘anathema to our community, our values and our belief that we should use knowledge for good.’”
Similarly, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario, issued a statement in May 2021 prohibiting physicians from making comments or providing advice that goes against the official narrative.
Actor Clifton Duncan shared the Orwellian message on Twitter, urging his followers to “Read this. Now. And then share it as much as you can.”14 Because, equally as disturbing as the notion of publicly dictating to physicians what they’re allowed to say, is the fact that, as Duncan said, the statement has a glaring omission, “The health and well-being of the patient.”15
Certain states have stood out for their refusal to buy into the draconian public health measures that were adopted throughout much of the U.S. Florida is chief among them. After a spring 2020 lockdown, Florida business, schools and restaurants reopened, while mask mandates were rejected.
“If Florida had simply done no worse than the rest of the country during the pandemic, that would have been enough to discredit the lockdown strategy,” Tierney said, noting that the state acted as the control group in a natural experiment. The results speak for themselves:16
“Florida’s mortality rate from Covid is lower than the national average among those over 65 and also among younger people, so that the state’s age-adjusted Covid mortality rate is lower than that of all but ten other states. And by the most important measure, the overall rate of ‘excess mortality’ (the number of deaths above normal), Florida has also done better than the national average.
Its rate of excess mortality is significantly lower than that of the most restrictive state, California, particularly among younger adults, many of whom died not from Covid but from causes related to the lockdowns: cancer screenings and treatments were delayed, and there were sharp increases in deaths from drug overdoses and from heart attacks not treated promptly.”
It defies reason how so many government, academic and policy leaders could support rampant censorship and suppress scientific debate for so long, all while propagating panic. One of Tierney’s explanations is what he calls “the crisis crisis,” or the “incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians”:17
“It’s a longstanding problem — humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century by the ‘population crisis’ and the ‘energy crisis’ — that has dramatically worsened with the cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks, and retweets.
To keep audiences frightened around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering: politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, and assorted experts who gain publicity, prestige, funding, and power during a crisis.
Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry can’t resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded.”
The politicization of research is another major issue that contributes to groupthink and the suppression of scientific debate in order to support one agenda. Meanwhile, while the media advertised that we’re all in this pandemic together, some were clearly more affected than others — namely the poor and less educated, who lost jobs while professionals were mostly able to keep working from the “safety” of their homes.
Children from disadvantaged families also suffered the most from year-long school closures. “The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the poorest countries of the world,” Tierney wrote,18 while many of the elite got richer. The reality is, lockdowns have caused a great deal of harm, from delays in medical treatment and disrupted education to joblessness and drug overdoses, and for little, if any, benefit.
Data compiled by Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) also found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed. Yet, this is the type of information that has been censored from the beginning. As Tierney put it:19
“This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust. Do not assume that the media’s version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow ‘the science’ to know what they’re talking about.”
As the inventor of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine platform, Dr. Robert Malone is one of the most qualified individuals to opine on the benefits and potential risks of this technology.
His background includes a medical degree from Northwestern University, a master's degree from Salk Institute, a bachelor's degree in biochemistry from UC Davis, a Giannini fellowship in pathology and a post-graduate fellowship in global clinical research at Harvard.
He taught pathology to medical students for about a decade at the University of Maryland and the University of California Davis, and then became an associate professor of surgery at Uniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences, where he launched a major research institute focused on breast cancer and high-throughput screening in genomics for breast cancer.
After that, he helped found a company called Inovio, which has brought forth a number of gene therapy discoveries, including vaccines, and the use of pulsed electrical fields as a delivery method. After 9/11, a colleague at the University of Maryland's department of business and economic development connected him with Dynport Vaccine Company, a startup that had received a DoD contract to manage its biodefense products.
"That's when I transitioned from being more of an academic to the advanced development world of clinical research, regulatory affairs, project management, compliance, quality assurance — all of that stuff that goes into actually making a product," Malone explains.
"It was a huge epiphany that the world really didn't need more academic thought leaders and [that] I was wasting my time focusing on that. What the world really needed was that people understood the underlying technology and the discovery research world, but also understood advanced development, which is that drug development is a highly-regulated world. And there aren't very many of those.
So, I set out to become really expert in that latter part and worked with the government, particularly in biodefense and vaccine development, for a couple of decades. And that brings me to the present.
I've captured a couple of billion dollars in grants and contracts for companies that I've worked with, and clients from the government, from BARDA [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], from the Department of Defense and others."
I've been accused of falsely stating that these COVID shots are not vaccines but gene modifying interventions. However, even Malone agrees with this statement, and as the inventor of the technology, he should know. He points out that in Germany, by law you cannot refer to this technology as a genetic vaccine or gene therapy vaccine. "The German government has specifically outlawed the use of gene therapy-based vaccine as a term," he says.
With his background, and having received the COVID shot himself, he can hardly be called an "anti-vaxxer" and/or someone who doesn't believe in gene therapies. Yet, he recently went public with concerns about the safety of rolling out this kind of technology on a mass scale, and the unethical ways in which they're being promoted.
As has become the trend, he was immediately censored. Wikileaks even went so far as to erase him from the historical section of the mRNA vaccine page and his own personal Wikipedia page was removed. All references to Malone inventing the mRNA technology were removed and attributed to a variety of institutions instead.
Malone's public involvement with the COVID jab issue began with a short essay1 reflecting on the bioethics of the current campaign to get a needle in every arm. This essay grew out of a conversation he'd had with a Canadian physician. Malone's essay catalyzed an interview with Bret Weinstein in June 2021 on the DarkHorse Podcast.
This isn't the first time Malone has spoken out against unethical behavior in science. He was also a whistleblower in the Jesse Gelsinger death case,2 back in 1999. Gelsinger was a young man who had a rare metabolic disorder called ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency syndrome (OTCD), where dangerous amounts of ammonia build up in your blood.
He'd been diagnosed at the age of 2, and was managing his condition with a regimen of nearly 50 drugs a day. At 17, Gelsinger signed up for an investigational gene therapy. Like the COVID shots, the therapy involved injecting a gene attached to an adenovirus, which would be integrated into his DNA to permanently produce an enzyme that prevents ammonia buildup.
Gelsinger was the 18th person to receive the gene therapy, and while the others had only experienced mild side effects, Gelsinger had a severe response after scientists at the University of Pennsylvania administered adenoviruses doses that were far above what had been approved by the corresponding safety committee.
Gelsinger became disoriented and developed jaundice and acute inflammation, followed by a rare blood clotting disorder and multi-organ failure. He was dead within days. Even a decade later, Gelsinger's death is still considered the biggest setback for gene therapy.3
"When the Jesse Gelsinger events happened, I also had long been a deep insider in the gene therapy space, so I had specific knowledge of what had happened at Penn — the ethical transgressions, shall we say, that occurred — and had awareness, again, just like now, of the technology," Malone says. "So, I was able to make sense of things that otherwise were obscure for journalists and even other scientists."
After speaking out about the ethical transgressions that contributed to Gelsinger's death (dosing which exceeded approved levels), Malone became a "persona non-grata" in the gene therapy community. In other words, he was blacklisted by his peers and prevented from participating in gene therapy research.
"That's part of why I went in a different direction with my career and focused on government work and biodefense, supporting the Department of Defense," Malone says. "The lesson learned for me is that I'm able to be resilient, together with my wife's support.
Another key lesson was that your friends will support you through times of crisis if you behave with integrity and maintain your friendships and treat people with respect. I also had a lot of support for having spoken out and taken an ethical high road on that and not compromised myself …
It's part of why I'm comfortable [speaking out now]. People tell me that I come across as balanced and calm. But yes, this is a little bit frightening and once again, [I'm] putting my career on the line. But once again many of my colleagues in the government are grateful that I'm speaking this way. They are not able to have a voice because of their jobs and government policies about speaking out."
As explained by Malone, he's been heavily censored since his three-hour interview with Brett Weinstein. LinkedIn even deleted his account. However, LinkedIn users all around the world canceled their accounts in protest and wrote the company, explaining their cancellations were in protest of Malone being censored.
The social media uproar culminated in a major news article in a mainstream Italian paper, which appears to have pushed LinkedIn over the edge. LinkedIn eventually reinstated Malone's account and even sent him a letter of apology.
"I don't think I've ever heard of a company writing a letter of apology after delisting and deleting somebody," he says. "My sins were 'profound,'" he says sarcastically, "They were that I outed the chairman of the board of directors of Reuters who is also sitting on the board of Pfizer, for cross-posting the Wall Street Journal article on vaccine toxicity risks, and well, basically for complaining about censorship.
So, they sent me my list of sins with six different posts that were to pretty much anybody's eye innocuous, which I then took and cross-posted onto Twitter. So, that revealed the absurdity of that … The note [of apology] that I received basically said, 'Look, we don't have the expertise to censor you, but if you cross the line, we have the right to summarily delete you again and so mind your manners.'"
In recent years, Malone has been involved in yet another startup company (Atheric Pharmaceuticals), in collaboration with the DoD, that focused on repurposing drugs to combat Zika infection. That company went bankrupt for lack of investor interest in repurposing drugs for treating infectious diseases.
When the COVID-19 outbreak began, he got a call from a colleague who works in the intelligence community in Wuhan, China, who urged him to put together a team to investigate the possibility of repurposing old drugs against COVID.
His team is currently about to enter clinical trials for a number of licensed off-patent drugs. That said, his biggest contribution so far is probably his commentary on the bioethics of what is going on.
"Both my wife and I are deeply ethical people," he says. "We're high school sweethearts. We try really hard to live ethical lives and to help our fellow man as well as the animals in our lives. So that's just the place we come from. It's bedrock. We're not rich people.
I recall a long telephone call with the Canadian physician that poured his heart out about the situation in Canada that he's encountering, both with vaccine administration in primary practice, and also in administering alternative therapies to outpatients, which generally have no therapies available.
I mean, the position is a bit shocking — in the emergency rooms all across the world. Basically, you go to the ER and if your O2 sets are down, pushing towards 80, they say, 'Well, go [home] and come back when your lips are blue.' And that's the essence of it. They don't really offer anything.
So many physicians, including this gentleman in Canada, have been seeking alternative strategies and they've tested and administered these various agents. We've heard of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. There are many, many others now, including those that we're working with (famotidine and celecoxib) that seem to have therapeutic benefit when administered early to shut down this hyperinflammatory response.
So, he shared this and the stories of multiple reports of vaccine adverse events that in his clinical judgment were clearly vaccine related, some of them quite serious, and that the Canadian government would summarily dispose of those as non-related even though in his clinical judgment, they clearly were related.
He spoke about the enticement of children in Canada with ice cream and the willingness of the Canadian government to administer vaccine to children without their parents or guardians consent after enticing them with ice cream cones, and some of the other things that I just found shocking ...
It mirrors what we're seeing across the world, where governments are taking liberties with people's health and their rights without real legislative authorization to do so in most cases."
Malone and his wife Jill are both trained in bioethics, so after listening to this Canadian colleague, he decided he could help by writing a lay press opinion piece about the bioethics of experimental vaccines under emergency use authorization.
"I have intimate knowledge of not only the emergency use authorization legislation, the FDA policies behind it, I even know the people that wrote it," Malone says.
"So, we dove in, refreshed our memories on the whole history of the modern bioethics construct that briefly runs from Nuremberg Trials to the Nuremberg Code, to Helsinki Accord, to the Belmont Report in the United States, and to the common rule that exists in the code of federal regulations."
In summary, since the COVID shots only have emergency use authorization status, they are experimental products, and as such, they are not authorized for marketing. The core bioethical principles that apply therefore involve three key components:
1. Bioethics are written into federal law — As an experimental trial participant, which is what everyone is at the moment who accepts a COVID shot, you have the right to receive full disclosure of any adverse event risks. Based on that disclosure, you then have the right to decide whether you want to participate.
Adverse event risk disclosure should be provided at the level of detail disclosed in any drug package insert. However, the COVID shots have no such insert or detailed disclosure, and adverse event reports are even being suppressed and censored from the public.
Instead, as explained by the FDA,4 since the COVID shots are not yet licensed,5 rather than providing a package insert, the FDA directs health care providers to access a lengthy, online "fact sheet" that lists both clinical trial adverse events and ongoing updates of adverse events reported after EUA administration to the public.
A shorter, separate, online fact sheet with far less information in it is available for patients — but, provider or patient, you still have to know where to look up each of the three EUA vaccines separately on the FDA website to access those fact sheets.6
2. Adverse event risks must be communicated in a way that you can comprehend what the risks are — This means the disclosure must be written in eighth grade language. In clinical trials, researchers must actually verify participants' comprehension of the risks.
3. The acceptance of an experimental product must be fully voluntary and uncoerced — enticement is forbidden. "I argue that all of this public messaging that we've all been bombarded with … constitutes coercion," Malone says.
"The most egregious example of this that I've ever seen, is the federal government identifying 12 people … and labeling them as the dirty dozen, [saying] that they are responsible for causing death because they are disseminating what the government has determined to be misleading information about vaccines. This is mind boggling to me and to most of my colleagues."
As you probably know, I am on that "disinformation dozen" list. The irony of this situation is that government officials are really the ones contributing to the deaths by not adhering to bioethical principles that are enshrined in law. It's a classic case of 1984 Orwellian doublespeak.
As I mention in the interview, the "misinformation dozen" list is the creation of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a shady organization funded by dark money that sprung up less than two years ago.
"Yeah, you don't even have to go to dark money. It's out in the open. There's this Trusted News Initiative led by the BBC. They announced … last fall that they have integrated Big Tech, Big Media and new media, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, et cetera, into an organization that was intended to control false narratives relating to elections, but they decided to turn it on what they perceived as false narratives for vaccines," Malone says.
"As if that wasn't enough, the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced initiatives where they're making block grants to Facebook, which is then funding these new pop-up fact-checker organizations … [that] are employing methods to smear people and to ban information …
What happens is these fact-checker organizations will make their pseudo fact check, like what I experienced with Reuters — which was transparently false, their fact check — and then the media will recycle the fact check. So that moves up in the Google ranking and they're citing themselves. That's what's going on. And it's sponsored by the likes of Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and they're quite proud of it."
Considering the unknown risks involved, why are governments and vaccine makers pushing so hard for children and pregnant women to participate in this experiment? Both have an extremely low risk for complications from COVID-19, which makes adverse effects of the vaccine all the more unacceptable, if not all together intolerable.
Making matters worse, there's no process in place to capture all side effects. Somehow, this was left out, and there's evidence to suggest this was done intentionally.
"I think it's important for the listenership to recognize that what we have is still an emerging understanding of what the adverse events are," Malone says. "I could tell you the story of how the cardiotoxicity adverse event was recognized, and it was not through official channels. There is [also] the appearance that the CDC is deliberately under-reporting adverse events to the public.
And there's the appearance that there was manipulation of safety data analysis and reporting in the Phase 1, 2, 3 clinical trials for some of these products by focusing on patients who had completed the study per protocol, as opposed to those that entered the study as intended to treat.
That's a subtle distinction, but what it means is that if you've only accepted one dose of vaccine under those clinical trial protocols and you have an adverse event, and you decide to drop it out, or they gently suggest that you shouldn't take the second dose, that information about the adverse events that you received — which would have made you at even higher risk for the second dose — is lost. It's not included in the safety analysis.
This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research, and it's strictly forbidden. So, the FDA is onto that trick. Normally, if I was to do that, I would get slapped down immediately. Why they allow these large drug companies to do this (if, in fact they did) — and you can't claim that Pfizer didn't know what they were doing — is beyond me.
Now that we know about the adverse events associated with the cardiotoxicity in adolescents and the damage to the heart and the deaths associated with that, people can start to do calculations based on official CDC data, [but] those data are flawed.
They probably under-report the true adverse event rate by about a 100-fold if you're relying on the various historic analysis information. But you can look at those data. And if you're a data scientist, you can do the calculations that the CDC is not doing and not disclosing to us about risk benefit.
The ones that I've seen done by well-trained and highly experienced specialists, people that work for the insurance industry that do this for a living … come out literally upside down."
If the clinical trials did not include patients dropped after Dose 1 in the safety analysis, this would indicate a "per protocol" safety analysis was performed, and therefore that the safety data analyses leading to the emergency use authorizations were not based on rigorous safety assessments.
Multiple patients claiming to have been included in COVID-19 clinical trials have also reported on social media that their reports were excluded from final safety analyses, although this cannot be verified.
A study7 posted July 7, 2021, which looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic, found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived.
By July 19, 2021, in the United States, a total of 335 children under 18 had died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate.8 An analysis by Marty Makary and colleagues at Johns Hopkins, together with FAIR Health, showed none of the children under 18 who died and were diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and August 2020 were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer.9
Now, while the average healthy child has a minuscule chance of dying from COVID-19, and their risk of developing heart inflammation from the COVID jab is also quite low, the risk associated with the injection is still significantly greater than any risk associated with the natural infection. As explained by Malone:
"That ratio comes out suggesting that there will be more lives lost to receipt of the 'vaccine' in a universal vaccine campaign than there would be if all those kids were infected by SARS-CoV-2. This upside-down ratio appears to extend or very close to equivalent at least up to the age of 30.
So, we're in a position where the data that we have are admittedly flawed. Is that by intent or what? From my standpoint, the data are the data, so I can't smoke out what somebody within health and human services intended to do, but I can look at the data, and others can.
And the data absolutely do not support a positive risk-benefit ratio for vaccination of infants through young adults, based on any normal criteria. So then why are they doing this crazy stuff? It seems to all be wrapped around the axle of the need to justify universal vaccination.
I argue that this is actually a mid-century policy that goes back to the '50s and the '60s polio vaccine campaign, when the government and world health authorities established a position that it was OK to lie, to withhold information about risk for vaccines, because to have the full spectrum of information about the risks of vaccines would cause people to not accept the vaccine.
So, 'Shut up, we know it's best for you and don't question us' is a firmly authoritarian position. It is intrinsically authoritarian and paternalistic. It's exactly the kind of stuff that George Orwell wrote about in his book '1984.' It was a warning … of how governments and authoritarian structures will behave and do behave."
Ironically, Malone points out that in the 1984 Federal Register,10 it's stated that posting information into the federal register about vaccine risks that jeopardizes vaccine I uptake shall be suppressed.
"So, it's a clear federal policy going back to 1984," Malone says. "This is the way they're going to handle things. And they're going to handle it with the noble lie of saying, 'No, there are no risks and what we're doing is fully justified' …
I don't think we have to go to imagining some grand conspiracy at Davos between certain individuals. I think this is an emergent phenomena of the intersection of old-school thinking about information management and new-school capabilities and technologies.
I think the CDC, HHS, WHO, and Wellcome Trust or Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, etcetera, have just grossly misread the population, certainly in the United States. And so now we're in a position where before, according to Del Bigtree, there was about 1% to 2% of people that self-identified as anti-vaxxers, and we're now [above] 40%. Clearly, about 40 to 50% of the population are just dug in. They're not going to accept these vaccines.
The White House now finds it necessary to have a special group to identify and target 12 American citizens for what they believe to be vaccine disinformation, and to make a big public press announcement about it. Don't they have anything else to do? It seems like the world has got bigger problems than Dr. Mercola, but what do I know?
The whole thing is mind-bending. And a lot of people, including many Europeans, are really lit up over this. They remember. European intellectuals are very aware of the dynamics that happened in Germany in the 1930s … I think this could be a turning point in a lot of things."
While Malone is not interested in speculating about the intentions behind all this malfeasance, he's intimately familiar with the power of Big Pharma to manipulate governments. As detailed in other articles, several of the COVID injection makers have a rich history of illegal activity and unethical behavior, and now they have been given free reign to do as they please.
They're been completely absolved from liability if and when something goes wrong with these injections, and governments are enticing and bullying citizens to participate in Big Pharma's experiment.
"If you give that kind of liberty and power to a global multinational and absolve them of any accountability, they will serve their stockholders," Malone says. "They are not geared to serving the rest of us, whatever they may say in their press releases.
That's just how big pharma behaves, and we've chosen this model. Messaging having to do with alternative treatments and the importance of wellness, those are not consistent with the 'Take this pill, pay your price and shut up' kind of business model.
Personally, I think that Mr. Gates and his foundation have done enormous irreparable harm to world health community through his actions and his own personal biases. He has really distorted global public health. At some point, there will be books written about this, and I'm sure an enormous number of Ph.D. theses will be granted. But meanwhile, we all have to live with it."
Dr. Mercola Interviews the Experts
This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.
In this interview, Dr. Steven Quay — one of the most-cited scientists in the world1 — discusses his Bayesian analysis,2 published January 29, 2021, which concludes beyond a doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is laboratory derived. Quay is an M.D. with a Ph.D. in chemistry. You can learn more about Dr. Quay on his website.
He did his medical residency at Mass General at Harvard Hospital and his postdoctoral work at MIT with a Noble laureate. He holds 87 patents in 22 fields of medicine, including the gadolinium used with MRI imaging.
During his career, Quay published 360 papers, which have been cited over 10,000 times. His COVID origin paper, however, has already been downloaded 170,000 times. Bayesian analysis,3 or Bayesian inference, is a statistical tool used to answer questions about unknown parameters by using probability distributions for observable data.
Quay's highly conservatively-skewed analysis shows there's only a 0.2% likelihood that this virus came from nature, and a 99.8% probability that it came from a lab. His 140-page paper can be downloaded from zenodo.org4 for those who want to dive into the nitty gritty of this statistical analysis. He presented these data to House Representatives during a June 26, 2021, subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis meeting.5
Instead of using the observed statistics of the data he gathered, he radically reduced the probability to 1 in 20. When one combines all the statistical anomalies from the 26 different data points he collected, the real likelihood of the virus coming from nature is less than 1 in all the atoms of the universe — 1080 — which is a very, very large number, making it virtually impossible.
As early as January 2020, Quay knew SARS-CoV-2 could be problematic.
"Nobody was paying any attention because there was no need to at that point," he says. "I saw this virus coming out of China. I looked at the sequence of it and I remember telling my wife, 'I know what this thing is going to do in cells,' because for five years at Stanford, I was studying and was the world expert on the toxin melittin, which is a bee venom toxin, the thing that hurts when you get a bee venom …
This melittin, this toxin in bee venom, has the same sequence that SARS-CoV-2 had … I run a public company, so I went to the board a couple weeks later and said, 'Look, I think we can come up with some therapeutics and some ideas around this.' We actually are in clinical trials with some products for therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2.
Then I started hearing some really crazy public health advisories around masks, social distancing and things, so I ended up writing a little book that was a No. 1 best seller for a few weeks called 'Stay Safe: [A Physician's Guide to Survive Coronavirus,]' on Amazon. That took me through the summer. Then I started going back to something. I was very concerned about what I saw as properties of this virus that had never been seen before.
It's now public knowledge that the government identified one of my papers, so I was contacted by the State Department in the fall and basically was an adviser to their programs there, including a three-hour deep dive from all of the different committees or agencies there …
I continue to push this because … if it came from nature, there are certain things we should do differently to not have this happen again. If it came from a laboratory, there's a completely different set of things you need to do. It's not a blame game."
Quay recently published another paper in which he reveals that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is also working on another virus, the Nipah virus, which has a 90% lethality rate. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what might happen if a virus with that lethality got out. Quay explains:
"[The WIV] published an early paper on samples from COVID patients in the hospital … It's the most-read paper from the beginning of the pandemic. I did a deep dive into their raw data. The sequence is 30,000 nucleotides — the raw data's 55 million nucleotides. What you can see in there is a fingerprint of everything they've been doing for the last two years. They're doing a lot of crazy research."
As explained by Quay, the WIV has been around for about 40 years. In 2003, after SARS-Cov-1 emerged, the U.S. and France helped China refurbish the WIV into a more secure BSL 4 biolab, the only one in China. Since then, the WIV has become a primary laboratory for zoonotic viruses. It's also one of the top three laboratories for gain-of-function synthetic biology, which can be accomplished in several ways.
If you know what you want to alter, you can insert a new synthetic amino acid into the pathogen. If you don't have a precise idea of the change you want to achieve, but you want the pathogen to adapt from an animal to a human, you can do what is called serial passage, where the virus is passed through a series of animal and human tissues.
For example, you could start by infecting 20 humanized mice with a virus, then isolate the virus from the sickest mouse and give it to another 20. Humanized mice are genetically modified mice to have human lung tissue. After four or five passages like that, the virus will have mutated to attack and kill human hosts.
"The third way is to drop big chunks of material in there. For example, the part of the virus of SARS-CoV-2 that interacts with the cell is about 200 amino acids, so times three for nucleic acid, so that's 600. You can just drop a big piece of 600 in and instantly go from an animal to humans, or whatever direction you want.
So, those are the three [primary strategies]: Knowing what to do with single spots, randomly letting nature do it in serial passage, and then dropping big chunks in."
As mentioned, Bayesian analysis is a statistical tool using probability distributions. The theorem was developed by Thomas Bayes, a 17th century Presbyterian minister and statistician-mathematician who published many papers during his lifetime. After his death, his estate discovered private notes detailing a process for understanding large complex events in a simple straightforward fashion. The Bayesian equation is A multiplied by B, divided by C. Quay explains:
"It's exactly the same thing we do when we have a favorite baseball team and we watch it during the season. Before the season, we know what they did last year. We know who the new players are, the new coaches, all those things, and we come up with what we call a prior prediction.
We rank the teams according to what we think will happen at the World Series, and that's what's called our prior, our posterior probabilities. Then the season happens and you start winning games, losing games, people get injured, new players, transfers, and you update that every week.
At the start of the World Series, you're probably quite far from where you were at the beginning of the season, because you're now down to two teams but, nonetheless, you still don't know the final analysis. One of the caveats for this 140-page work is, at the end, although I say there's a 1 in 500 chance it came from nature, but that means … 499 times out of 500 it came from a laboratory."
With regard to SARS-CoV-2, "A" would be the prior estimate of the likelihood of it coming from a lab or from nature. "B" is the new evidence, the new probability that it came from a lab, and "C" is the probability that it came from nature. When you multiply A and B and divide it by C, you get a new A prime, a single probability. However, as new data accumulate, the answer changes.
"The first thing I did was assume the prior likelihood it came from nature or a lab, knowing nothing, basically. That has to be your starting point. Three papers informed that. One paper says that eight times a year, there's a natural jump from nature to a human.
Another paper said, once a year, there's a lab leak in Asia, so 8-to-1 [in favor of natural origin]. That's like 85% probability [that it came] from nature. I used three papers, and my starting point was a 98% probability it came from nature, knowing nothing else."
Quay did not include the three papers mainstream media and fact checkers have leaned on to debunk the lab origin theory, and in his paper he explains why they were excluded. In short, they relied on speculation and not science, so the clear bias and lack of scientific facts made them too unreliable.
Next, he entered 26 different pieces of evidence into the equation. The first piece of data was the fact that the virus first emerged in Wuhan, China, which has never happened before. Wuhan has a population of 11 million people. It's a very urban area with little man-nature contact. Wuhan also has one of only three biosafety level (BSL) 4 laboratories in the world that are conducting coronavirus research specifically. Next, he calculated probabilities.
"You know the area of China; you know the population of China. If the virus happened randomly, what is the chance it would happen in Wuhan? If there's a laboratory in Wuhan, what are the chances it would have escaped somewhere else in China and not appeared in Wuhan?
You do the flip. If it came from nature, why did it end up in Wuhan? If it came from Wuhan, what is the probability it could have first appeared somewhere else in China? That hits your probabilities pretty hard out of the box. That was item No. 1. Then you just work through the others."
One key piece that makes a big difference in this Bayesian calculation is the question of zoonosis. In order for zoonosis to apply, you must have an animal with a backbone (vertebrae) that is infected with a microbe. Malaria, for example, is not a zoonotic disease, because mosquitoes do not have vertebrae. Malaria is a vector-transmitted disease.
The key to finding the origin of a zoonotic transmission is to locate the animal. If the animal is in the community, then zoonotic transmission occurs through a natural process. If the transmission occurs in a lab, then it's a laboratory-acquired infection, not a zoonotic transmission. Early on, we were told up to 70% of the earliest COVID patients had visited one or more markets in Wuhan, some of which have live animals for sale.
The problem is SARS-CoV-2 was not found in any of the more than 1,000 animal specimens collected from those markets. They also sampled more than 1,000 pieces of frozen food imported from outside of China, all of which came back clean. About 15% of environmental samples, however, did have the virus.
They also collected samples from all the other markets across the Hubei Province, where Wuhan is located. No virus. About 1,000 bats in Hubei were tested, and no virus was found. Over 80,000 animals representing 209 species from every province of China were eventually tested, and no SARS-CoV-2 was found.
For comparison, SARS-1 was found in 85% of animals tested. The original host was identified as the civet cat. MERS, which came from the Middle East, originated in a bat that had jumped to a camel before turning into a human virus, and it was found in 90% of animals. Yet, after the largest surveillance ever conducted in the history of the world, having tested 80,000 animal specimens, not one has been found to carry SARS-CoV-2.
"In my Bayesian analysis … even though I should drop 80,000 into the denominator of my equation, what I did was I degraded it to the standard in clinical trials of biology to a P of .05. I said, 'Despite the fact that zero out of 80,000 had this [virus], I'm going to treat this as if it's a 1 in 20 event,' because that's the only way I could keep doing the analysis. Otherwise, I was done at the get-go," Quay explains.
To be clear, this gives a very unfair advantage to the zoonotic origin theory, but Quay wanted to have a complete analysis of all the parameters. Diversity is a hallmark of nature, yet there's no diversity in nature for this virus. Zoonotic proponents have argued that the virus must be found in high concentration in an intermediate species, yet not one out of 80,000 samples from 209 different animal species is a carrier of the virus.
Another key piece of the analysis is the virus itself. Bats are nature's reservoirs for coronaviruses. The bats are never sickened by them, so the virus is never rooted out. It just lives in the bats for decades, mutating and recombining with other viruses along the way. Bat-to-human contact is very rare, so most of the time, the transfer occurs between the bats, the reservoir host and an intermediate host before it enters the human population.
That's what happened with SARS-1 and MERS. Early cases of SARS-1 and MERS were divided evenly between human to human transmission, and transmissions that occurred between different animals and humans. This means both of these viruses were most likely zoonotic in origin.
As mentioned earlier, Quay cites research showing natural jumps from nature to a human occur eight times a year, and lab escapes occur once a year. That gives us an 8-to-1 chance of zoonotic origin. However, of the first 259 cases in China, not one was traced back to animal contact. All were human-to-human transmissions.
As noted by Quay, "This is the equivalent of going to Las Vegas and flipping a coin and getting heads 259 times. When you ask your statistician to do that, it's a P value with 84 zeros and a number, so again, that's absolutely impossible."
To understand how big this number is, the estimated number of atoms in the universe is 10 to the 80th power. Despite this showing it's more or less impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to have a zoonotic origin, Quay gave this a P value of just 0.5 (or a 1 in 20 chance) — again, just to keep the analysis going.
"It's not in the animals in nature. The virus is a pure virus … It hit the ground with one sequence, and it makes a mistake every two weeks randomly and if it's the kind of mistake it really likes, it keeps it and then that one takes off," he says.
"Again, SARS-1, MERS, every other zoonosis, when it jumps into humans, it's a two-step process. Initially, it jumps into humans, but it doesn't have all the things it needs. It can't make very many baby viruses, et cetera, and so it burns out, and then it tries again, and it tries again. It jumps back to camels, that sort of thing.
Eventually, it gets all the mutations it needs to support human to human transfer. Then you have the foundation for an epidemic, but that's a long process. With SARS-1 it took a year and a half. With MERS, it took two and a half years in camels before it got there. What does that mean though? Every time a human gets an infection … there is a record in their blood. They make antibodies to the virus.
Once you know that a zoonosis is going to jump into humans and leave a record in the hospital specimens and you have a test from the epidemic of the virus itself, you can go back into the hospital and find specimens. Typically, it can range from 1, to 4, to 7, to almost 20% of the specimens.
For example, people working in the market will have antibody evidence that they had the infection, whether they knew it or not.
This is a very powerful tool … Because of the unique capability of this virus to hit human to human transmission from the get-go, [Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in California who published a paper6 supporting zoonotic origin] predicted that there would be a lot of pre-epidemic seroconversion.
These are fancy words for 'go into a hospital, take samples out of the refrigerator, test them and find a high percentage.' Of course, people took him up on that and tested over 9,900 banked specimens from December  and before in Wuhan. How many do you think they found that were positive?
My statistician says they should have had 100 to 400. They got zero. You run the crank on that, and that's a 1 in a million probability.
The virus has the incredible capability of being the most aggressive human to human virus that's ever been seen in the history of virology, but it does not have the hallmark of how you would build that in nature, which is pre-epidemic human contact. You can't have both of these properties in the same virus if it came from nature.
Now, if you take a mouse that's been humanized in a laboratory to have human lungs and you serial passage there, that is an effective way to do it.
Amazingly, two months after the epidemic broke out, we're February-March 2020 now, Dr. Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Dr. Baric in America, the No. 1 synthetic biologist in the world of coronavirus research in North Carolina, published a paper saying, 'Hey, if you grow this virus in transgenic mice, it kills the mice and, by the way, they get brain infections, which is really unusual.'
I'm saying, 'Yeah, that's probably the experiment that was done in 2019 that led to the spill.'"
Again, using extremely conservative data, Quay's analysis shows there's a 99.8% probability that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory creation. If you want to read through it all, his paper can be downloaded from zenodo.org.7
At the end of the interview, Quay delivers yet another bombshell. SARS-CoV-2 makes three primary kinds of proteins. The first are the structural proteins for a virus — the spike, envelope and nucleoplasm proteins. It also makes proteins that take over the cells' manufacturing process, thereby allowing the virus to replicate inside the cell. In addition to those, it also makes two very odd proteins that are excreted into your blood.
"These strange proteins, they're not the virus, they're not in the cell," Quay explains. "When you get an infection, you get a fever, you get sweaty and you get chills, you feel like crap. That's not the virus. That's your own interferon signaling and it helps you fight the virus and probably in prehistory it told your fellow tribe members to isolate you in your own tent. So, it evolved as a social signal for survival of the tribe."
With many focusing on tomorrow’s Cyber Polygon exercise, less attention has been paid to the World Economic Forum’s real ambitions in cybersecurity — to create a global organization aimed at gutting even the possibility of anonymity online. With the governments of the US, UK and Israel on board, along with some of the world’s most powerful corporations, it is important to pay attention to their endgame, not just the simulations.
Amid a series of warnings and simulations in the past year regarding a massive cyber attack that could soon bring down the global financial system, the "information sharing group" of the largest banks and private financial organizations in the United States warned earlier this year that banks "will encounter growing danger" from "converging" nation-state and criminal hackers over the course of 2021 and in the years that follow.
The organization, called the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC), made the claim in its 2021 "Navigating Cyber" report, which assesses the events of 2020 and provides a forecast for the current year. That forecast, which casts a devastating cyber attack on the financial system through third parties as practically inevitable, also makes the case for a "global fincyber [financial-cyber] utility" as the main solution to the catastrophic scenarios it predicts.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, an organization close to top FS-ISAC members has recently been involved in laying the groundwork for that very "global fincyber utility" — the World Economic Forum, which recently produced the model for such a utility through its Partnership against Cybercrime (WEF-PAC) project.
Not only are top individuals at FS-ISAC involved in WEF cybersecurity projects like Cyber Polygon, but FS-ISAC's CEO was also an adviser to the WEF-Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report that warned that the global financial system was increasingly vulnerable to cyber attacks and was the subject of the first article in this 2-part series.
Another article, published earlier this year at Unlimited Hangout, also explored the WEF's Cyber Polygon 2020 simulation of a cyber attack targeting the global financial system. Another iteration of Cyber Polygon is due to take place tomorrow July 9th and will focus on simulating a supply chain cyber attack.
A major theme in these efforts has not only been an emphasis on global cooperation, but also a merging of private banks and/or corporations with the State, specifically intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
In addition, many of the banks, institutions and individuals involved in the creation of these reports and simulations are either actively involved in WEF-related efforts to usher in a new global economic model of "stakeholder capitalism" or are seeking to imminently introduce, or are actively developing, central bank-backed digital currencies, or CBDCs.
In addition, and as mentioned in the first article in this series, a cyber attack like those described in these reports and simulations would also provide the perfect scenario for dismantling the current failing financial system, as it would absolve central banks and corrupt financial institutions of any responsibility.
The convergence of several concerning factors in the financial world, including the end of LIBOR at the end of year and the imminent hyperinflation of globally important currencies, suggests that the time is ripe for an event that would not only allow the global economy to "reset", but also absolve the fundamentally corrupt financial institutions around the world from any wrongdoing.
Instead, faceless hackers can be blamed and, given recent precedents in the US and elsewhere, any group or nation state can be blamed with minimal evidence as politically convenient. This report will closely examine both FS-ISAC's recent predictions and the WEF Partnership against Cybercrime, specifically the WEF-PAC's efforts to position itself as the cybersecurity alliance of choice if and when such a catastrophic cyber attack cripples the current financial system.
Of particular interest is the call by both FS-ISAC and the WEF Partnership against Cybercrime to specifically target cryptocurrencies, particularly those that favor transactional anonymity, as well as the infrastructure on which those cryptocurrencies run. Though framed as a way to combat "cybercrime", it is obvious that cryptocurrencies are to be unwanted competitors for the soon-to-be-launched central bank digital currencies.
In addition, as this report will show, there is a related push by WEF partners to "tackle cybercrime" that seeks to end privacy and the potential for anonymity on the internet in general, by linking government-issued IDs to internet access. Such a policy would allow governments to surveil every piece of online content accessed as well as every post or comment authored by each citizen, supposedly to ensure that no citizen can engage in "criminal" activity online.
Notably, the WEF Partnership against Cybercrime employs a very broad definition of what constitutes a "cybercriminal" as they apply this label readily to those who post or host content deemed to be "disinformation" that represents a threat to "democratic" governments.
The WEF's interest in criminalizing and censoring online content has been made evident by its recent creation of a new Global Coalition for Digital Safety to facilitate the increased regulation of online speech by both the public and private sectors.
FS-ISAC officially exists to "help ensure the resilience and continuity of the global financial services infrastructure and individual firms against acts that could significantly impact the sector's ability to provide services critical to the orderly function of the global economy."
In other words, FS-ISAC allows the private financial services industry to decide on and coordinate sector-wide responses regarding how financial services are provided during and after a given crisis, including a cyber attack. It was tellingly created in 1999, the same year that the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated banks after the onset of the Great Depression, was repealed.
Though FS-ISAC's members are not publicly listed on the group's website, they do acknowledge that their membership includes some of the world's largest banks, Fintech companies, insurance firms and payment processors.
On their board of directors, the companies and organizations represented include CitiGroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley, among others, strongly suggesting that FS-ISAC is largely a Wall Street-dominated entity. SWIFT, the society that manages inter-bank communication and dominates it globally, is also represented on FS-ISAC's board.
Collectively, FS-ISAC members represent $35 trillion in assets under management in more than 70 countries. FS-ISAC also has ties to the World Economic Forum due to the direct involvement of its then-CEO Steve Silberstein in the WEF-Carnegie initiative and FS-ISAC's participation in the initiative's "stakeholder engagements."
There is also the fact that some prominent FS-ISAC members, like Bank of America and SWIFT, are also members of the WEF's Centre for Cybersecurity, which houses the WEF Partnership against Cybercrime project. At the individual level, the founding director of FS-ISAC, Charles Blauner, is now an agenda contributor to the WEF who previously held top posts at JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank and CitiGroup.
He currently is a partner and CISO-in-residence of Team8, a controversial start-up incubator that operates as a front for Israeli military intelligence in tech-related ventures that is part of the WEF Partnership against Cybersecurity. Team8's CEO and co-founder and the former commander of Israeli intelligence outfit Unit 8200, Nadav Zafrir, has contributed to WEF Centre for Cybersecurity policy documents and WEF panels on the "Great Reset".
In addition, current FS-ISAC board member Laura Deaner, CISO of Northwestern Mutual, served as the co-chair for the WEF's Global Futures Council on Cybersecurity. Teresa Walsh, the current global head of intelligence for FS-ISAC, will be a speaker at the WEF's Cyber Polygon 2021 regarding how to develop an international response to ransomware attacks. Walsh previously worked as an intelligence analyst for Citibank, JP Morgan Chase and the US Navy.
The FS-ISAC's recent report is worth looking at in detail for several reasons, with the main one being the sheer power and influence that its members, both known and unknown, hold over the current fiat-based financial system. The full report is exclusive to FS-ISAC members, but a "thematic summary" is publicly available.
The FS-ISAC's recent report on "Navigating Cyber" in 2021 is "based on the contributions of our members and the resulting trend analysis by FS-ISAC's Global Intelligence Office (GIO)" and includes several "predictions" for the current calendar year.
The group's GIO, led by Teresa Walsh, soon-to-be speaker at Cyber Polygon 2021, also "coordinates with other cybersecurity organizations, companies and agencies around the world" in addition to its intelligence gathering from FS-ISAC members.
At the beginning of 2020, when the COVID-19 crisis resulted in an overt push towards digitization, FS-ISAC launched a "new secure chat and intelligence sharing platform" that "provided a new way for members to discuss threats and security trends." It is fair to assume that the private discussions on this platform directly informed this report.
According to the recent FS-ISAC report, the main trends and threats discussed by its members through this service over the past year were "third party risks", such as the risk presented by major hacks of third party service providers, like the SolarWinds hack, and "geopolitical tensions."
The report contains several "predictions for 2021 and beyond." The first of these predictions is that adversarial nation-states will team up with "the cybercriminal underworld" in order to "obfuscate their activity and complication attribution."
FS-ISAC does not provide evidence of this having happened, but supporting this claim makes it easier to blame state governments for the activities of cybercriminals when politically convenient without concrete evidence. This has happened on several occasions with recent high-profile hacks, most recently with SolarWinds.
As noted in previous reporting, prominent companies that contract for the US government and military, like Microsoft, and intelligence-linked cybersecurity companies, are often the sole sources for such narratives in the past and, in those cases, do not provide evidence, instead qualifying such assertions as "likely" or "probable."
Even mainstream outlets reporting on FS-ISAC's "predictions" noted that "FS-ISAC did not point to specific examples of spies relying on such tradecraft in the past," openly suggesting that there is little factual basis to support this claim.
Other predictions focus on how third party service providers, such as SolarWinds and the more recently targeted Kaseya, will dominate, affecting potentially many thousands of companies across multiple sectors at once.
However, the SolarWinds hack was not properly investigated, merely labeled by US intelligence as having "likely" ties to "Russian" state-linked actors despite no publicly available evidence to support that claim. Instead, the SolarWinds hack appears to have been related to its acquisition of an Israeli company funded by intelligence-linked firms, as discussed in this report from earlier this year.
SolarWinds acquired the company, called Samanage, and integrated its software fully into its platform around the same time that the backdoor used to execute the hack was placed into the SolarWinds platform that was later compromised.
FS-ISAC also predicts that attacks will cross borders, continents, and verticals, with increasing speed. More specifically, it states that the cyber pandemic will begin with cyber criminals that "test attacks in one country and quickly scale up to multiple targets in other parts of the world." FS-ISAC argues that it is therefore "critical to have a global view on cyber threats facing the sector in order to prepare and defend against them."
Since FS-ISAC made this prediction, cyber attacks and especially ransomware have been occurring throughout the world and targeting different sectors at a much more rapid pace than has ever been seen before. For instance, following the Colonial Pipeline hack in early May, Japan, New Zealand, and Ireland all experienced major cyber attacks, followed by the JBS hack on June 1.
The hack of Kaseya, believed by some to be just as consequential and damaging as SolarWinds, took place about a month later on July 2, affecting thousands of companies around the world. The final, and perhaps the most important, of these predictions is that "economic drivers towards cybercrime will increase."
FS-ISAC claims that the current economic situation created by COVID-related lockdowns will "make cybercrime an ever more attractive alternative," noting immediately afterwards that "dramatic increases in cryptocurrency valuation may drive threat actors to conduct campaigns capitalising on this market, including extortion campaigns against financial institutions and their customers."
In other words, FS-ISAC views the increase in the value of cryptocurrency as a direct driver of cybercrime, implying that the value of cryptocurrency must be dealt with to reduce such criminal activities. However, the data does not fit these assertions as the use of cryptocurrency by cybercriminals is low and getting lower.
For instance, one recent study found that only 0.34% of cryptocurrency transactions in 2020 were tied to criminal activity, down from 2% the year prior. Though the decrease may be due to a jump in cryptocurrency adoption, the overall percentage of crime-linked crypto transactions is incredibly low, a fact obviously known to FS-ISAC and its members.
However, cryptocurrency does present a threat to the plans by FS-ISAC members and its partners to begin producing digital currencies controlled either by approved private entities (like Russia's Sbercoin) or central banks themselves (like China's digital yuan).
The success of that project depends on neutering the competition, which is likely why FS-ISAC subtitled its 2021 report as "the case for a global fincyber utility," with such a utility framed as necessary to defend the financial services industry against cyber threats.
Conveniently for FS-ISAC, there is already a project that hopes to soon become this very global fincyber utility – the WEF Partnership Against Cybercrime (WEF-PAC). Partners in WEF-PAC include some of the world's largest banks and financial institutions, such as Bank of America, Banco Santander, Sberbank, UBS, Credit Suisse and the World Bank, as well as major payment processors such as Mastercard and PayPal.
Also very significant is the presence of all of the "Big Four" global accounting firms: Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Think tanks/non-profits, including the Council of Europe, Third Way and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as well as the WEF itself, are also among its members as are several national government agencies, like the US Department of Justice, FBI and Secret Service, the UK's National Crime Agency and Israel's National Cyber Directorate.
International and regional law enforcement agencies, such as INTERPOL and EUROPOL, both of which are repeat participants in the WEF's Cyber Polygon, are also involved.
Silicon Valley is also well represented with the presence of Amazon, Microsoft, and Cisco, all three of which are also major US military and intelligence contractors. Cybersecurity companies founded by alumni and former commanders of Israeli intelligence services, such as Palo Alto Networks, Team8 and Check Point, are also prominent members.
The Israeli intelligence angle is especially important when examining WEF-PAC, as one of its architects and the WEF's current Head of Strategy for Cybersecurity is Tal Goldstein, though his biography on the WEF website seems to claim that he is Head of Strategy for the WEF as a whole.
Goldstein is a veteran of Israeli military intelligence, having been recruited through Israel's Talpiot program, which feeds high IQ teenagers in Israel into the upper echelons of elite Israeli military intelligence units with a focus on technology.
It is sometimes referred to as the IDF's "MENSA" and was originally created by notorious Israeli spymaster Rafi Eitan. Eitan is best known as Jonathan Pollard's handler and the mastermind behind the PROMIS software scandal, the most infamous Israeli intelligence operation conducted against Israel's supposed "ally", the United States.
Due to its focus on technological ability, many Talpiot recruits subsequently serve in Israel's Unit 8200, the signals intelligence unit of Israeli military intelligence that is often described as equivalent to the US' NSA or the UK's GCHQ, before moving into the private tech sector, including major Silicon Valley companies.
Other Talpiot-Unit 8200 figures of note are one of the co-founders of Check Point, Marius Nacht, and Assaf Rappaport, who designed major aspects of Microsoft's cloud services and later managed that division. Rappaport later came to manage much of Microsoft's research and development until his abrupt departure early last year.
In addition to his past as a Talpiot recruit and 8 years in Israeli military intelligence, the WEF's Tal Goldstein had played a key role in establishing Israel's National Cyber Bureau, now part of Israel's National Cyber Directorate, now a WEF-PAC partner. The National Cyber Bureau was established in 2013 with the explicit purpose "to build and maintain the State of Israel's national strength as an international leader in the field" of cybersecurity.
According to Goldstein's WEF biography, Goldstein led the formation of Israel's entire national cybersecurity strategy with a focus on technology, international cooperation, and economic growth.
Goldstein was thus also one of the key architects of the Israeli cybersecurity policy shift which took place in 2012, whereby intelligence operations formerly conducted "in house" by Mossad, Unit 8200 and other Israeli intelligence agencies would instead be conducted through private companies that act as fronts for those intelligence agencies. One admitted example of such a front company is Black Cube, which was created by the Mossad to act explicitly as its "private sector" branch.
In 2019, Israeli officials involved in drafting and executing that policy openly yet anonymously admitted to the policy's existence in Israeli media reports. One of the supposed goals of the policy was to prevent countries like the US from ever boycotting Israel in any meaningful way for violations of human rights and international law by seeding prominent multinational tech companies, such as those based in Silicon Valley, with Israeli intelligence front companies.
This effort was directly facilitated by American billionaire Paul Singer, who set up Start Up Nation Central with Benjamin Netanyahu's main economic adviser and a top AIPAC official in 2012 to facilitate the incorporation of Israeli start-ups into American companies.
Goldstein's selection by the WEF as head of strategy for its cybersecurity efforts suggests that Israeli intelligence agencies, as well as Israeli military agencies focused on cybersecurity, will likely play an outsized role in WEF-PAC's efforts, particularly its ambition to create a new global governance structure for the internet.
In addition, Goldstein's past in developing a policy whereby private companies acted as conduits for intelligence operations is of obvious concern given the WEF's interest in simulating and promoting an imminent "cyber pandemic" in the wake of the COVID crisis.
Given that the WEF had simulated a scenario much like COVID prior to its onset through Event 201, having someone like Goldstein as the WEF's head of strategy for all things cyber ahead of an alleged "cyber pandemic" is cause for concern.
Last November, around the same time the WEF-Carnegie report was released, the WEF-PAC produced its own "insight report" aimed at "shaping the future of cybersecurity and digital trust." Chiefly written by the WEF's Tal Goldstein alongside executives from Microsoft, the Cyber Threat Alliance, and Fortinet, the report offers "a first step towards establishing a global architecture for cooperation" as part of a global "paradigm shift" in how cybercrime is addressed.
The foreword was authored by Jürgen Stock, the Secretary-General of INTERPOL, who had participated in last year's Cyber Polygon exercise and will also participate in this year's Cyber Polygon as well. Stock claims in the report that "a public-private partnership against cybercrime is the only way to gain an edge over cybercriminals" (emphasis added).
Not unlike the WEF-Carnegie report, Stock asserts that only by ensuring that large corporations work hand in glove with law enforcement agencies "can we effectively respond to the cybercrime threat." The report first seeks to define the threat and focuses specifically on the alleged connection between cryptocurrencies, privacy enhancing technology, and cybercrime.
It asserts that "cybercriminals abuse encryption, cryptocurrencies, anonymity services and other technologies", even though their use is hardly exclusive to criminals. The report then states that, in addition to financially motivated cybercriminals, cybercriminals also include those who use those technologies to "uphold terrorism" and "spread disinformation to destabilize governments and democracies".
While the majority of the report's discussion on the cybercrime threat focuses on ransomware, the WEF-PAC's inclusion of "disinformation" highlights the fact that the WEF and their partners view cybercriminals through a much broader lens.
This, of course, also means that the methods to combat cybercrime contained within the report could be used to target those who "spread disinformation", not just ransomware and related attacks, meaning that such "disinformation" spreaders could see their use of cryptocurrency, encryption, etc. restricted by the rules and regulations WEF-PAC seeks to promote.
However, the report promotes the use of privacy-enhancing technologies for WEF-PAC members, a clear double standard that reveals that this group sees privacy as something for the powerful and not for the general public.
This broad definition of "cybercriminal" conveniently dovetails with the Biden administration's recent "domestic terror" strategy, which similarly has a very broad definition of who is a "domestic terrorist."
The Biden administration's strategy is also not exclusive to the US, but a multinational framework that is poised to be used to censor and criminalize critics of the WEF stakeholder capitalism model as well as those deemed to hold "anti-government" and "anti-authority" viewpoints.
The WEF-PAC report, which was published several months before the US strategy, has other parallels with the new Biden administration policy, such as its call to crack down on the use of anonymity software by those deemed "cybercriminals" and calling for "international information sharing and cross-border operational cooperation," even if that cooperation is "not always aligned with existing legislative and operational frameworks."
In addition, the Biden administration's strategy concludes by noting that it is part of a broader US government effort to "restore faith" in public institutions. Similarly, the WEF-PAC report frames combatting all types of activities they define as cybercrime necessary to improving "digital trust", the lack of which is "greatly undermining the benefits of cyberspace and hindering international cyber stability efforts."
In discussing "solutions", the WEF-PAC calls for the global targeting of "infrastructures and assets" deemed to facilitate cybercrime, including those which enable ransomware "revenue streams", i.e. privacy-minded cryptocurrencies, and enable "the promotion of illegal sites and the hosting of criminal content."
In another section, it discusses seizing websites of "cybercriminals" as an attractive possibility. Given that this document includes online "disinformation" as cybercrime, this could potentially see independent media websites and the infrastructure that allows them to operate (i.e. video sharing platforms that do not censor, etc.) emerge as targets.
The report continues, stating that "in order to reduce the global impact of cybercrime and to systematically restrain cybercriminals, cybercrime must be confronted at its source by raising the cost of conducting cybercrimes, cutting the activities' profitability and deterring criminals by increasing the direct risk they face."
It then argues, unsurprisingly, that because the cybercrime threat is global in scope, it's "solution must also be a globally coordinated effort" and says the main way to achieve this involves "harnessing the private sector to work side by side with law enforcement officials."
This is very similar to the conclusions of the WEF-Carnegie report, released around the same time as the WEF-PAC report, which called for private banks to work alongside law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as their regulators to "protect" the global financial system from cybercriminals.
This global coordination, per the WEF-PAC, should be based around a new global system uniting law enforcement agencies from around the world with cybersecurity companies, large corporations such as banks, and other "stakeholders."
The stakeholders that will make up this new entity, the structure of which will be discussed shortly, is based around 6 founding principles, several of which are significant. For example, the first principle is to "embrace a shared narrative for collective action against cybercrime."
Per the report, this principle involves the stakeholders comprising this organization having "joint ownership of a shared narrative and objective for the greater good of reducing cybercrime across all industries and globally."
The second principle involves the stakeholders basing their cooperation on "long-term strategic alignment." The fifth principle involves "ensuring value for participating in the cooperation", with such that "value" or benefit being "aligned with the public and private sectors' strategic interests."
In other words, the stakeholders of this global cyber utility will be united in their commitment to a common, public-facing "narrative" that serves their organizations' "strategic interests" over the long term.
The decision to emphasize the term "shared narrative" is important as a narrative is merely a story that does not necessarily need to reflect the truth of the situation, thus suggesting that stakeholders merely be consistent in their public statements so they all fit the agreed upon narrative.
Many organizations that are related to or are formally part of WEF-PAC are deeply invested in Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as well as efforts to digitalize and thus more easily control nearly every sector of the global economy and to regulate the internet.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that many of these groups may look to justify regulations and other measures that will advance these agendas in which they have long-term "strategic interests" through the promotion of a "shared narrative" that is deemed most palatable to the general public, but not necessarily based in fact.
Business is business, after all. The WEF-PAC report concludes with its three-tier model for "a global architecture for public-private cooperation against cybercrime."
The top level of this system is referred to as the "global partnership", which will build on the existing WEF-PAC and will "bring together international stakeholders to provide an overarching narrative and commitment to cooperate; foster interaction within a global network of entities that drive efforts to fight cybercrime; and facilitate strategic dialogues and processes aiming to support cooperation and overcome barriers in the long term."
Elsewhere in the report it notes that chief among these "barriers" are existing pieces of legislation in many countries that prohibit law enforcement agencies and government regulators from essentially fusing their operations with private sector entities, particularly those they are meant to either oversee or prosecute for wrongdoing.
In addition, the report states that this "global partnership" would focus on fostering "a shared narrative to increase commitment and affiliation", amplifying "operational cooperation" between the public and private sectors and improving "stakeholders' understanding of respective interests, needs, goals, priorities and constraints."
The second level of this system is called "permanent nodes" in the report. These are defined as "a global network of existing organizations that strive to facilitate public-private cooperation over time." The main candidates to occupy the role of "permanent nodes" are "non-profit organizations that are already spurring cooperation between private companies and law enforcement agencies," specifically the Cyber Threat Alliance and the Global Cyber Alliance.
Both are discussed in detail in the next section. Other potential "permanent nodes" mentioned in the report are INTERPOL, EURPOL and, of course, FS-ISAC. While the top level "global partnership" represents the "strategic level" of the organization, the "permanent node" level represents the "coordination level" as the nodes would supply necessary infrastructure, operational rules, and management, as well as "strategic dialogue" among member organizations.
The permanent nodes would directly enable the third level of the organization, which are referred to as "Threat Focus Cells" and are defined as representing the organization's "operational level." The WEF-PAC defines these cells as "temporary trust groups consisting of both public- and private-sector organizations and they would focus on discreet cybercrime targets or issues."
Per the report, each cell "would be led jointly by a private-sector participant, a law enforcement participant and a designated representative" of the permanent node that is sponsoring the cell.
Ideally, it states that cells should have between 10 to 15 participants and that "private-sector participants would typically represent organizations that can act to enhance cybersecurity on behalf of large constituencies, that have unique access to relevant cybersecurity information and threat intelligence, or that can contribute on an ecosystem-wide basis."
Thus, only massive corporations need apply. In addition, it states that law enforcement members of threat cells should "represent national-level agencies" or hail from "network defence or sector-specific agencies" at the national, regional or international level. Cell activities would range from "scouting a new threat" to "an infrastructure takedown" to "arrests."
The WEF-PAC concludes by stating that "in the coming months, the Partnership against Cybercrime Working Group will continue to prepare the implementation of these concepts and widen the scope of the initiative's efforts", including by inviting "leading companies and law enforcement agencies" to pledge their commitment to the WEF-PAC's efforts.
It then states that "the suggested architecture could eventually evolve into a newly envisioned, independent Alliance to Combat Global Cybercrime." "In the interim," it continues, "the World Economic Forum and key stakeholders will work together to promote the desired processes and assess the validity of the concept."
Among the organizations that the WEF-PAC highlights as shoo-in candidates for "permanent nodes" in their proposal for a global cyber utility, there are two that stand out and are worth examining in detail. They are the Cyber Threat Alliance (CTA) and the Global Cyber Alliance (GCA), both of which are formal members of the WEF-PAC.
The Cyber Threat Alliance (CTA) was initially founded by the companies Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks in May 2014, before McAfee and Symantec joined CTA as co-founders that September. Today, Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks are charter members alongside Check Point and Cisco, while Symantec and McAfee are affiliate members alongside Verizon, Sophos and Avast, among several others.
The mission of CTA is to allow for information sharing among its many partners, members, and affiliates in order to "allow the sharing of threat intelligence to better protect their customers against cyberattacks and to make the defense ecosystem more effective," according to CTA's current chief executive. CTA, per their website, also focuses on "advocacy" aimed at informing policy initiatives of governments around the world.
CTA is directly partnered with FS-ISAC and the WEF-PAC as well as the hawkish, US-based think tank the Aspen Institute, which is heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation.
Other partners include: MITRE Engenuity, the "tech foundation for public good" of the secretive US intelligence and military contractor MITRE; the Cyber Peace Institute, a think tank seeking "peace and justice in cyberspace" that is largely funded by Microsoft and Mastercard (both of which are WEF partners and key players in ID2020); the Cybersecurity Coalition, whose members include Palo Alto Networks, Israeli intelligence front company Cybereason, intelligence and military operative Amit Yoran's Tenable, Intel, AT&T, Google, McAfee, Microsoft, Avast and Cisco, among others; the Cybercrime Support Network, a non-profit funded by AT&T, Verizon, Google, Cisco, Comcast, Google and Microsoft, among others; and the Global Cyber Alliance, to be discussed shortly.
Another key partner is the Institute for Security and Technology (IST), which has numerous ties to the US military, particularly DARPA, and the US National Security State, including the CIA's In-Q-Tel. The CEO of the Cyber Peace Institute, Stéphane Duguin, was a participant in Cyber Polygon 2020, and the CEO of the Cybercrime Support Network, Kristin Judge, contributed to the WEF-PAC report. Some of the CTA's partners are listed in the WEF-PAC report as other potential "permanent nodes."
The CTA is led by Michael Daniel, who co-wrote the WEF-PAC report with Tal Goldstein. Daniel, immediately prior to joining CTA as its top executive in early 2017, was a Special Assistant to former President Obama and the Cybersecurity coordinator of Obama's National Security Council.
In that capacity, Daniel developed the foundations for the US government's current national cybersecurity strategy, which includes partnerships with the private sector, NGOs and foreign governments.
Daniel has stated that some of his cybersecurity views at CTA are drawn "in part on the wisdom of Henry Kissinger" and he has been an agenda contributor to the WEF since his time in the Obama administration. Daniel is one of Cyber Polygon 2021's experts and will be speaking alongside Teresa Walsh of FS-ISAC and Craig Jones of INTERPOL on how to develop an international response to ransomware attacks.
The fact that CTA was founded by Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks is notable as both companies are intimately related. Fortinet's founder Ken Xie, who sits on CTA's board and is a founding member and advisor to the WEF's Centre for Cybersecurity, previously founded and then ran NetScreen Technologies, where Palo Alto Network's founder, Nir Zuk, worked after his earlier company OneSecure was acquired by NetScreen in 2002.
Zuk is an alumni of Israeli intelligence's Unit 8200 and was recruited directly out of that unit in 1994 by Check Point, a CTA charter member, WEF-PAC member and tech company founded by Unit 8200 alumni. Zuk has been open about maintaining close ties to the Israeli government while operating the California-based Palo Alto Networks. Fortinet, for its part, is known for hiring former US intelligence officials, including former top NSA officials.
Fortinet is a US government and US military contractor and came under scrutiny in 2016 after a whistleblower filed suit against the company for illegally selling the US military technological products that had been disguised in order to appear as American-made, but were actually made in China. Fortinet's Derek Manky is one of the co-authors of the WEF-PAC report.
Check Point's co-founder and current CEO, Gil Shwed, currently sits on CTA's board of directors and is also a WEF "Global Leader for Tomorrow", in addition to his longstanding ties to the Israeli National Security State and his past work for Unit 8200. Another Check Point top executive, Dorit Dor, is a member of the WEF Centre for Cybersecurity and a speaker at Cyber Polygon 2021, where she will speak on protecting supply chains.
Gil Shwed, over the past few weeks, has been making numerous appearances on US cable television news to warn that a "cyber pandemic" is imminent. In addition to those appearances, Shwed produced a video on June 23rd asking "Is a Cyber Pandemic Coming?", in which Shwed answers with a resounding yes.
The term "cyber pandemic" first emerged on the scene last year during WEF chairman Klaus Schwab's opening speech at the first WEF Cyber Polygon simulation and it is notable that the WEF-connected Shwed uses the same terminology.
Schwab also stated in that speech that the comprehensive cyber attacks that would comprise this "cyber pandemic" would make the COVID-19 crisis appear to be "a small disturbance in comparison."
In addition to CTA, another international alliance named by the WEF-PAC as a "permanent node" candidate is the Global Cyber Alliance (GCA). The GCA was reportedly the idea of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. who "knew that there had to be a better way to confront the cybercrime epidemic" back in 2015.
GCA was born through discussions Vance held with William Pelgrin, former President and CEO of the Center for Internet Security (CIS) and one of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's top cyber advisors. Pelgrin and Vance later approached Adrian Leppard, the then- police commissioner of the City of London, the controversial financial center of the UK. Unsurprisingly, CityUK, the City of London's main financial lobby group, is a member of the GCA.
If one is familiar with Cyrus Vance's time as Manhattan DA, his interest in meaningfully pursuing crime, particularly if committed by the wealthy and powerful, is laughable. Vance infamously dropped cases against and/or declined to prosecute powerful New York figures, including Donald Trump's children and Harvey Weinstein, subsequently receiving massive donations to his re-election campaigns from Trump family and Weinstein lawyers.
His office also once lobbied a New York court on behalf of intelligence-linked pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who was seeking at the time to have his registered sex offender status downgraded.
Vance's office later U-turned in regards to Weinstein and Epstein after more and more accusers came forward and after considerable press attention was paid to their misdeeds. Vance also came under scrutiny after dropping charges against former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Dominique Strauss-Kahn, for the sexual assault of a hotel maid.
Vance used $25 million in criminal asset forfeiture funds to create GCA, in addition to funding from Pelgrin's CIS and the Leppard-run City of London police. Its official yet opaque purpose is "to reduce cyber risk" on a global scale in order to create "a secure, trustworthy internet." Their means of accomplishing this purpose is equally vague as they claim to "approach this challenge by building partnerships and creating a global community that stands strong together."
For all intents and purposes, GCA is a massive organization whose members seek to create a more regulated, less anonymous internet. The role of the Center for Internet Security (CIS) in the GCA is highly significant, as CIS is the non-profit that manages key bodies involved in the maintenance of critical US infrastructure, including for US state and local governments and for federal, state and local elections.
CIS, which is also partnered with CTA, also works closely with the main groups responsible for protecting the US power grid and water supply systems and is also directly partnered with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Its board of directors, in addition to William Pelgrin, includes former high-ranking military and intelligence operatives (i.e. the aforementioned Amit Yoran), former top officials at the DHS and the National Security Agency (NSA) and one of the main architects of US cyber policy under the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
CIS was created through private meetings between "a small group of business and government leaders" who were members of the Cosmos Club, the "private social club" of the US political and scientific elite whose members have included three presidents, a dozen Supreme Court justices and numerous Nobel Prize winners.
GCA's main funders are the founders listed above as well as the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the foundation of the co-founder of Hewlett-Packard (HP), a tech giant with deep ties to US intelligence; Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the "philanthropic" arm of the Craigslist founder's influence empire; and Bloomberg, the media outlet owned by billionaire and former Mayor of New York Mike Bloomberg.
GCA's premium partners, which also fund GCA and secure a seat on GCA's Strategic Advisory Committee, include Facebook, Mastercard, Microsoft, Intel, and PayPal as well as C. Hoare & Co., the UK's oldest privately owned bank and the fifth oldest bank in the world.
Other significant premium partners include the Public Interest Registry, which manages the .org domain for websites, and ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), that manages much of the Internet's global Domain Name System (DNS).
Those two organizations together represent a significant portion of website domain name management globally. Notably, the founding chairwoman of ICANN was Esther Dyson, whose connections to Jeffrey Epstein and the Edge Foundation were discussed in a recent Unlimited Hangout investigation.
In terms of partners, GCA is much larger than CTA and other such alliances, most of which are themselves partners of GCA. Indeed, nearly every partner of CTA, including the CTA itself are part of the GCA as is CTA co-founder Palo Alto Networks.
GCA's partners include several international law enforcement agencies including: the National Police, National Gendarmerie and Ministry of Justice of France, the Ministry of Justice of Lagos, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the UK Met Police, and the US Secret Service. The state governments of Michigan and New York are also partners.
Several institutions and companies deeply tied to the US National Security State, such as Michael Chertoff's the Chertoff Group, the National Security Institute, and MITRE, are part of GCA as are some of the most controversial and intelligence-connected cybersecurity companies, such as Crowdstrike and Sepio Systems, another Unit 8200 alumni-founded company whose chairman of the board is former Mossad director Tamir Pardo.
The Israeli intelligence-linked initiative CyberNYC is also a member. Major telecommunication companies like Verizon and Virgin are represented alongside some of the world's largest banks, including Bank of America and Barclays, as well as FS-ISAC and the UK's "most powerful financial lobby", the CityUK. Also crucial is the presence of several media organizations as partners, chief among them Bloomberg.
Aside from Bloomberg and Craig Newmark Philanthropies (which funds several mainstream news outlets and "anti-fake news" initiatives), media outlets and organizations partnered with GCA include Free Press Unlimited (funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundations, the European Union, and the US, Dutch, Belgian and UK governments), the Institute for Nonprofit News (funded by Craig Newmark, Pierre Omidyar's Omidyar Network and George Soros' Open Society Foundations, among others), and Report for America (funded by Craig Newmark Philanthropies, Facebook, Google and Bloomberg).
PEN America, the well-known non-profit and literary society focused on press freedom, is also a member. PEN has become much more closely aligned with US government policy and particularly the Democratic Party in recent years, likely owing to its current CEO being Suzanne Nossel, a former deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations at the Hillary Clinton-run State Department. The many other members of GCA can all be found here.
The considerable involvement of some of the most powerful corporations in the world from some of the most critical sectors that underpin the current economy, as well as non-profits that manage key internet, government and utility infrastructure in these organizations that comprise WEF-PAC is highly significant and also concerning for more than a few reasons.
Indeed, if all were to follow the call to form a "shared narrative", whether it is true or not, in pursuit of long-term "strategic interests", which the WEF and many of its partners directly relate to the rapid implementation of the 4th Industrial Revolution via the "Great Reset", the WEF-PAC global cyber utility could emerge sooner rather than later.
As evidenced by the architecture put forth by WEF-PAC, the power that organization would have over the public and private sectors is considerable. Such an organization, once established, could usher in long-standing efforts to both require a digital ID to access and use the internet as well as eliminate the ability to conduct anonymous financial transactions.
Both policies would advance the overarching goal of both the WEF and many corporations and governments to usher in a new age of unprecedented surveillance of ordinary citizens.
The effort to eliminate anonymous transactions in digital currency has become very overt in some countries in recent weeks, particularly in the US. For instance, Anne Neuberger, current Deputy National Security Adviser who has deep ties to the US-Israel lobby, stated on June 29 that the Biden administration was considering obtaining more "visibility" into ransomware groups' activities, particularly anonymous cryptocurrency transactions.
Such efforts could easily cross the line into state surveillance of any and all Americans' online crypto transactions, especially given the US government's history of habitually engaging in surveillance overreach in the post-9/11 era. One specific possibility mentioned by Neuberger was to prohibit companies from keeping crypto payments of concern secret, suggesting possible, imminent regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges.
Current efforts, per Neuberger, also include an effort to build "an international coalition" against ransomware, which will likely tie into WEF-PAC given that the FBI, DOJ and US Secret Service are already members.
Neuberger also stated that the recent public-private partnership that took down the Trickbot botnet "should be the kind of operation used to tackle ransomware gangs in the future." However, that effort, led by WEF partner Microsoft, preemptively took down a network of computers "out of fear that hackers could deploy [that network] to launch ransomware attacks to inhibit election-supporting IT systems" ahead of the US election.
Using Trickbot as the model for future ransomware operations means opening the door to companies like Microsoft taking preemptive action against infrastructure used by people that the government and private sector "fear" may engage in "cybercrime" at some point in the future.
Notably, on the same day as Neuberger's statements, Congressional representative Bill Foster (D-IL) told Axios that "there's significant sentiment in Congress that if you're participating in an anonymous crypto transaction that you are a de facto participant in a criminal conspiracy." Coming from Rep. Foster, this is quite significant as he is a member of the Financial Services Committee, the Blockchain Caucus and a recently formed Congressional working group on cryptocurrency.
His decision to use the phrase "anonymous crypto transaction" as opposed to a transaction linked to ransomware or criminal activity is also significant, as it suggests that the possibility that complete anonymity is seen to be the target of coming efforts to regulate the crypto space by the US Congress.
While Foster claims to oppose a "completely surveilled environment" for crypto, he qualifies that by stating that "you have to be able to unmask and potentially reverse those [crypto] transactions."
However, if this becomes government policy, it will mean the only group allowed to have complete anonymity in online financial transactions will be the State and will open the door to the government's abuse of "unmasking", which the US government has done in numerous instances over the years through the systematic abuse of FISA warrants.
It is also important to mention that the US is hardly alone in its effort to wipe out online financial anonymity in the crypto world, as several governments that are supporting Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) projects, which includes the US, are either moving towards or have already cracked down on the crypto space.
This had major implications for the crypto market and resulted in a considerable reduction in bitcoin's value, which it has yet to fully recover. It is reasonable to assume that other governments will work to aggressively regulate or even ban crypto markets following the introduction of their CBDC projects in order to force widespread adoption of the digital currency favored by the State.
It is also worth highlighting the additional fact that, as China introduced the digital yuan, it also sought to crackdown on cash, stating that the anonymity offered by cash – much like anonymous crypto transactions – could also be used for "illicit activity." However, there are some obvious holes in the WEF-PAC's narratives and justifications for its "solutions."
For example, even if cryptocurrencies are banned or heavily regulated, it is unlikely that this will end cyber attacks, with hackers likely finding a new way to conduct operations that provide them with some sort of financial benefit. Cyber attacks and cybercrime precede the creation of crypto considerably and would continue even if crypto were somehow magically removed from the equation.
In addition, there has been speculation about the nature of the 3 big hacks that took place over the past year: SolarWinds, Colonial and JBS. In the case of SolarWinds, attribution of blame to "Russian hackers" came down to CIA-linked cybersecurity firm FireEye claiming that the "disciplined" methodology of the hackers could only possibly have been individuals tied to Russia's government and because FireEye's CEO received a postcard he "suspects" was Russian in origin.
Left uninvestigated was the firm Samanage, which is linked to the same intelligence networks in which the WEF's current head of cyber strategy worked for years. Regarding the Colonial pipeline hack, there is the fact that the original narrative was later proven false, as the pipeline itself remained functional, but services were halted due to the company's concerns about their ability to bill customers properly.
In addition, the US Department of Justice managed to seize the vast majority of the bitcoin ransomware payment Colonial had made, suggesting that extreme regulation of the crypto market may not actually be necessary to deter cybercriminals or recuperate ransomware payments. Surely, WEF-PAC is aware of this because the US Department of Justice is one of its members.
With the JBS hack, there is the fact that the company, the world's largest meats processor, had partnered with the WEF just months before regarding the need to reduce meat consumption and had begun to heavily invest and acquire non-animal-based alternatives. Blackrock, a major WEF partner, is the 3rd largest shareholder in JBS.
Notably, after the hack, the situation was quickly used to warn of upcoming, widespread meat shortages, even though the disruption of the hack paused operations for just one day. In addition, the JBS hack was supposedly executed by "Russian hackers" being given "safe haven" by Russia's government.
However, JBS somehow has no problem partnering the WEF, which co-hosts Cyber Polygon alongside the cybersecurity subsidiary of Sberbank, which is majority owned by the same Russian government supposedly enabling JBS' hackers.
In addition to the effort to regulate crypto, there is also a push by WEF-partnered governments to end privacy and the potential for anonymity on the internet in general, by linking government-issued IDs to internet access. This would allow every piece of online content accessed to be surveilled, as well as every post or comment authored by each citizen, supposedly to ensure that no citizen can engage in "criminal" activity online.
This policy is part of an older effort, particularly in the US, where creating a nationwide "Driver's License for the Internet" was proposed and then piloted by the Obama administration. The European Union made a similar effort to require government-issued IDs for social media access a few years later.
The UK also launched its Verify digital ID program around the same time, something which former UK Prime Minister and WEF associate Tony Blair has been pushing aggressively to have expanded into a compulsory requirement in recent months. Then, just last month, the EU implemented a sweeping, new digital ID service that could easily be expanded to fit with the Union's past efforts to link such IDs to access to online services.
As Unlimited Hangout noted earlier this year, the infrastructure for many of these digital IDs, as well as vaccine passports, have been set up so that they are also eventually linked to financial activity and potentially online activity as well.
Ultimately, what WEF-PAC represents is a global organization that aims to neuter anonymity online, whether for financial purposes or for browsing and other activities. It is a global effort combining powerful governments and corporations that seeks to usher in a new age of surveillance that makes such surveillance a requirement to participate in the online world or use online services.
It is being sold to the public as the only way to stop a coming "pandemic" of cybercrime, a crisis taking place largely in murky parts of the internet that few understand or have any direct experience with.
Having to rely on State intelligence agencies and intelligence-linked cybersecurity firms for attribution of these crimes, it has never been easier for corrupt actors in those agencies or their partners to either manufacture or manipulate a crisis that could upend online freedom as we have known it, something these very groups have sought to implement for years.
All of this should serve as a poignant reminder that, as much as our lives have become interconnected with the internet and online activity, the fight to protect human freedom, dignity and liberty against a predatory, global oligarchy is fundamentally one that must take place in the real world, not only online. May the coming "cyber war", whatever form it takes, remind many that online activism must be accompanied by real world actions and organizing.
Is America spiraling into totalitarianism? All the signs are there, suggesting we're well on our way. Naomi Wolf, a former adviser to the Clinton administration, has been warning us about this for well over a decade.
In May 2021, I interviewed her about the 10 steps of tyranny, described in her 2007 book, "The End of America." While we've been inching our way toward tyranny for many years, Wolf warns we are now at Step 10. Soon, there will be no turning back — unless we break free, assert our rights starting with our freedom of speech, and put a stop to this transformation.
As noted by Benjamin Franklin, "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." Similarly, Samuel Adams stated, "For true patriots to be silent, is dangerous."1
In the video above, Yeonmi Park, a human rights activist and author of "In Order to Live: A North Korean Girl's Journey to Freedom," talks about the clear parallels she sees between the United States and North Korea, one of the most repressive countries in the world.
Although she's been presented in a critical light by an Asia-Pacific owned publication,2 I am a huge fan of Park as she is such an inspiration to warn us of what will happen if we neglect to preserve our hard-won freedoms. Please be sure and watch the much longer second video below. I suspect you too will be moved by what she and millions of others have suffered and are enduring in North Korea.
Park fortunately was able to defect from North Korea to China in 2007 at the age of 13, eventually settling in South Korea two years later, but only after first falling into the hands of human traffickers and being sold into sex slavery for less than $200. Her mother was sold for $65. Park and her mother were eventually able to escape to South Korea through Mongolia.
In 2016, she transferred from a South Korean university to Columbia University in New York. In a June 14, 2021, interview with Fox News,3 Park stated she believes "America's future may be as bleak as North Korea," adding that "even North Korea was not this nuts."
"I expected that I was paying this fortune, all this time and energy, to learn how to think. But they are forcing you to think the way they want you to think," she told Fox News. "I realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying."
In the video above, Park explains why she told her story to Fox News rather than a more mainstream media outlet. The answer? They were the only one that asked her to share her views.
While the Fox News interview went viral both in the U.S. and South Korea, not a single legacy news outlet picked up the story. This makes sense, considering corporate media are part of the tyrannical network responsible for the implementation of this brainwashing.
In North Korea, the day-to-day problems are life and death problems. The daily threat of starvation, torture, imprisonment without cause, and knowing that the utterance of one wrong political statement will get three generations of your family killed.
"I would rather die a free person than live as a slave," Park says at the end of her video. "You cannot even fathom what it's like when you don't have freedom … America is falling into tyranny … Let us stop this before it is too late."
In the video above,4 Park is interviewed by Valuetainment host Patrick Bet-David. I know 90 minutes is a long video, but trust me, your life could change if you watch the entire video. If you don't have time now, just watch it instead of some movie or TV series. I suspect very few of you have any idea that this type of tyrannical oppression and unethical human behavior is rampant in North Korea.
In this hour-and-a-half interview, she delves a lot deeper into what life is like in one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and what it really means to lose your freedoms. Even certain words have been censored from the North Korean language.
There are no words for "depression" or "stress" for example. The absence of such emotions is further indoctrinated through the one and only available TV channel, where every program highlights the rightness, beauty and benefit of the socialist system, and how wrong capitalist Western systems are. Here are some other examples in real life:
Government tells you what clothes and colors you are allowed to wear
Government tells you what haircuts you are allowed to have, with choices being limited to fewer than 20
Government tells you what kind of makeup you are allowed to use
Government decides what kinds of songs you are allowed to sing and what music you can listen to
Government dictates what kind of dance moves are allowed
Government tells you what kind of movies you can watch
Your profession is dictated by the political class of your parents
Who you can marry is dictated by the political class you were born into
Public executions are routine and everyone in the neighborhood is required to attend, including children. Crimes punishable by death include watching banned movies, reading banned books and criticizing the regime
Every single thing about your life is dictated by the regime. You have no individuality. You have no "personal choices." Guaranteed, you can say goodbye to gender pronoun preferences. That's just being pushed right now to lure you into this false idea that the socialist system actually provides you with more of everything — including individuality and individual rights — rather than less.
But if you think about it logically, how can we create an "equitable" society unless all individuality is removed? How can you and I end up in the same place and be treated exactly the same unless everything that separates us — our individual characteristics — are eliminated? The end result is the oppression of everyone and the wasting of everyone's natural talents.
Corruption is also guaranteed. Regardless of your profession, your salary will not be able to feed you, let alone pay for anything else. As a result, corruption is the norm. Food is also always scarce. Park routinely caught and ate grasshoppers. That was her primary source of protein growing up.
In fact, Park admits that it was hunger that drove her to risk death to escape North Korea with her mother. "I didn't know I wasn't free," she says. "I didn't know what freedom was. I risked my life for a bowl of rice."
The good news is, the would-be tyrants have not won. That said, we have no time to spare. Time is of the essence and we have no time to remain idle, hoping it will all just go back to normal on its own. I can confidently assure you it will not, and you will need to take action. I believe one of the answers is peaceful civil disobedience.
In the U.S., we do have the Second Amendment, which allows citizens to own and bear arms. That said, peaceful disobedience is still the primary and preferred strategy. We must also rally behind legislation that prevents the alteration of laws that safeguard our freedoms.
I believe that we will ultimately stop the globalists' drive toward global tyranny. It's not going to be easy. It may take years, and it may get far worse before it gets better.
The founders of the U.S. fled repressive societies or were children or grandchildren of those who did. They had to personally reckon with criminalized speech, arbitrary arrests and state sanctioned torture and even murder. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew that if they lost the war, they would be executed for treason.
The forefathers of the United States were radicals, fighting for liberty and personal freedoms. They had a vision of reality that was an absolute slap in the face of what the rest of the world tolerated. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to turn that vision into a reality.
Park discusses this in the featured video at the top of this article. How the story of our Founding Fathers — who cared enough about equality and human rights to sacrifice everything to achieve it — has been twisted.
It requires an illogical mindset to get our history so backwards. But each of us, individually, must also accept our share of the blame, for as Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."5
We must also realize that the current cancel culture trend is not about tossing a dusty past into the trash bin and highlighting more pleasant aspects of our history. Far from it. As noted by The Most Important News:6
"A huge national debate about our most important national symbols has erupted, and it is rapidly becoming one of our hottest political issues. But what most people don't realize is that this isn't really a debate about our past.
Rather, it is a debate about what our future is going to look like. Those that are demonizing the American flag, the national anthem, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not doing so for the purpose of winning a historical debate.
Their true goal is to 'cancel' those symbols and replace them with new ones, because our existing national symbols represent values and principles that are diametrically opposed to the values and principles that they wish to impose upon society.
If they ultimately get their way, the United States will eventually become an extremely repressive high tech dystopian society where absolutely no dissent is tolerated."
Get involved in your child's school, and make sure that what is being taught is in line with your values which, hopefully, if you're reading this, this includes personal freedom, which is what the United States was indeed founded upon. Remember, the American system of governance places the bulk of the power at the local level, not at the federal level.
Government is currently fighting to centralize power at the top, but they can only do that if we let them. In the United States, local action can eventually have national impact, and that is how we peacefully take our power back and ensure our freedom. We've had this power all along. We may have just forgotten how to use it.
The American Journal of Health Behavior1 published a special May/June 2021 edition dedicated solely to Juul. In essence, Juul Labs sponsored the entire issue of this national journal and devoted it to research funded or written by the company.
Juul began as a Silicon Valley darling in 2007.2 But the history of Juul Labs started two years before that when Stanford graduates James Monsees and Adam Bowen conceived "The Rational Future of Smoking," which was their graduate thesis and prediction of the future.3
After graduation the two founded Ploom Inc. and in 2012,4 the company introduced Pax, which became a popular way of consuming cannabis. By 2015 the company was renamed Pax Labs and they introduced the Juul e-cigarette. In 2017, Pax labs separated from Juul Labs to focus on other products, leaving Juul Labs to manufacture and distribute nicotine e-cigarettes.
By 2018 they were under investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for sales to underaged users. In 2019, experts across the country recognized a unique lung infection and injury associated with vaping.5 By February 18, 2020, there were 2,807 people who had been hospitalized and 68 confirmed deaths.
Investigations for underage sales, lung injuries and the sale of contaminated Juul pods6 prompted the company to spend 2020 in what The New York Times reported as a “reset” mode.7 As the FDA considers the future of the company, Juul is trying prove the product has public health benefit.
The FDA has set September 9, 2021, as a deadline for deciding whether products offered by Juul Labs have enough public health benefit to stay on the market.8 Juul has recorded a loss of sales of $500 million and cut their workforce by 75% since 2019.9 The company that was once valued at $38 billion, is now valued under $5 billion.
While waiting for the FDA to deliberate, the company teamed with Piney Associates and the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) to develop documentation that purportedly demonstrates the vaping device is a safer alternative to cigarettes.10
Once the papers were completed, Juul spent $51,000 with the American Journal of Health Behavior to publish 11 studies they funded or helped write in a special edition publication.11 The company paid an additional $6,500 so the information would have open access on the internet.
The published works are meant to support the company's premarket tobacco product application, which the company has not made public. Once the Juul issue was published, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Elbert D Glover, Ph.D., retired, without announcing his plans.
Before leaving, he said the journal had followed their standard protocol before publishing the studies — but three editorial board members still resigned in protest. The journal published conflict of interest disclosures12 which showed that all the studies were either written by scientists employed by Juul Labs or the research was funded by the company.13
The company is intent on creating positive press and squashing negative press as they wait for the FDA to make its decision. According to The New York Times,14 if the company survives the end of 2021, they are facing thousands of lawsuits.
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia are seeking money to combat what has become a vaping crisis in the youth. The Justice Department has the company under criminal investigation and there is multidistrict litigation in the California Federal Court.
The company’s first hurdle was to address the lawsuit in North Carolina filed by the North Carolina attorney general. According to Business Insider, Juul Labs agreed to pay $40 million and change their business practices to avoid a jury trial over questions of whether the company allegedly marketed their product to teens.15
In addition to the financial award, CNN reported some of the stipulations that the company must follow as stated by North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein. These include:16
Cannot sell any flavored nicotine pods in North Carolina without authorization from the FDA
Cannot use marketing strategies aimed at young people
Cannot use influencer advertising, outdoor ads near schools or sponsor concerts or sporting events
Cannot use most social media advertising
Cannot use anyone under age 35 in advertising
Cannot claim the e-cigarettes are safer or better for health than combustible cigarettes
The company must use a barcode age-verification system of identification and the system must be tested using mystery shoppers at 1,000 stores each year
Online sales are restricted to no more than two devices per month and 10 per year
CNN reported Juul stated restrictions are in line with their desire to curb underage smoking. A company spokesperson from Juul Labs spoke with a CNN reporter about how the award would be distributed, saying:17
"We look forward to working with Attorney General Stein and other manufacturers on the development of potential industry-wide marketing practices based on science and evidence. In addition, we support the Attorney General's desire to deploy funds to generate appropriate science to support North Carolina's public health interventions to reduce underage use."
As the company publicly agrees with the restrictions to their marketing and sales, their federal lobbying has remained robust. According to the Center for Responsive Politics,18 which tracks giving in the political arena, Juul spent $3.9 million in 2020, down $400,000 from 2019. Altria, the tobacco company that bought 35% of Juul in 201819 spent $10.6 million in 2020, which is $150,000 more than they spent in 2019.20
In September 2019, the CEO of Juul Labs stepped down and KC Crosthwaite, longtime tobacco executive, stepped into the role.21 Once installed, Crosthwaite stopped some of the controversial lobbying campaigns, closed many of Juul’s foreign markets, took mint flavored pods off the market and suspended U.S. advertising.22
In a company email he alluded to the fact that Juul must place earning the trust of the consumer at the center of what they do. However, as The New York Times23 points out, each of these changes was made at gunpoint. And the gun was pointed by the FDA, which threatened to shut down their business.
Matthew L Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, characterized the business relationship between Altria and Juul Labs this way: “The Marlboro man rode into Juul and now wants us to trust them.”24
At the end of Monsees’ and Bowen’s thesis presentation at Stanford, they played a video during which a user of the new product said, “This product is the greatest thing I have ever encountered in my life. I will smoke this with enthusiasm and develop a nicotine habit that will follow me to my grave.”25
A journalist from the Verge summarized the situation after an interview with the author of “The Devil’s Playbook: Big Tobacco, Juul, and the Addiction of a New Generation,” writing that the podcast listeners would recognize other industry themes:26
“There’s a big industry that’s slow to adapt, there’s a startup that’s moving fast and breaking things, there are regulators around the world who don’t quite know what to do, and at the center of it all, there’s a big question about our society’s relationship with a product that might be bad for people — and that people still want.”
Siddharth Breja, formerly Juul's senior vice president for global finance, claims in a lawsuit he filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that he was fired in 2019 in retaliation for criticizing the sale of at least 1 million contaminated and expired mint-flavored nicotine pods by Juul.27
The type of contamination or its source was not revealed in the lawsuit. Breja was quoted in The New York Times saying Juul “has jeopardized and continues to jeopardize public health and safety and the lives of millions of consumers, many of them children and teens.”28 The reporter wrote:29
“Mr. Breja detailed a culture of indifference to safety and quality-control issues among top executives at the company and quoted the then-chief executive Kevin Burns saying at a meeting in February: 'Half our customers are drunk and vaping' and wouldnʼt 'notice the quality of our pods.'”
Breja’s lawsuit alleged the contaminated mint-flavored pods were the result of decisions at Juul Labs to fill a huge demand for that flavor. This happened after the FDA pulled all other flavored pods in retail stores but continued to allow Juul to sell mint and menthol.
It wasn't long before the demand outstripped the supply. In the complaint, Breja said then-chief executive Kevin Burns told employees, “You need to have an IQ of 5 to know that when customers don’t find mango, they buy mint.”30
Once Breja learned of the contaminated pods, and that they could not be recovered, he urged the company to issue a recall or a warning. One week later, Breja was fired. Despite the proximate action, Juul spokesperson Ted Kwong dismissed the claims and said he was fired “because [Breja] failed to demonstrate the leadership qualities needed in his role.”31
David Kessler was head of the FDA from 1990 to 1997 during the tobacco investigation. The Los Angeles Times quotes him saying, “Addiction is central to the business model. With their nicotine salts, Juul has found the Holy Grail.”32
The Los Angeles Times reviewed more than 3,000 pages of internal company records released through the Freedom of Information Act showing Juul used research done by Reynolds Laboratories more than four decades before the release of JuulSalts.
Myers told the Los Angeles Times reporter, “Reynolds succeeded in developing the technology, but never really succeeded in turning it into a transformative breakthrough. Juul did that.”33
The data from the Freedom of Information Act release also showed Juul collected information on how to maximize nicotine delivery and literature collected by Reynold’s laboratory on how the drug impacts adolescent brains. The idea was to develop a new generation of nicotine addicts. Robert Jackler, Stanford University researcher, focused on teen e-cig use, commenting:34
“Reynolds successfully engineered this formula, but it was Juul that ultimately vaporized it — and achieved what Big Tobacco never could. They studied Reynold’s literature, took advantage of it, and addicted a new generation of American youth.”
At a 2018 tech startup conference, Monsees said on stage, “Certainly, the nicotine salt chemistry was one of the big breakthroughs.”35
The premise behind any good business model is to acquire and then keep customers. The food processed industry does this by ascertaining the “bliss point” in their product, which is the exact amount of sugar, salt and fat to optimize taste and make the product so perfectly engineered that you want more and more.36
Despite Juul Labs’ public assertion that their product is designed to be self-limited as a means of getting people to stop smoking combustible cigarettes, this model would soon put them out of business. Instead, you only have to look at the product itself and the history of the company’s push toward addiction to know the objective is to garner more customers and make more money — not to lose customers.
Have you heard of the MATH+ protocol to treat COVID-19? One of its creators, Dr. Joseph Varon, who leads the COVID-19 unit at United Memorial Medical Center (UMMC) in Houston, has been trying to get the word out about it since the start of the pandemic. "We have options for patients now. We just need to make those options available," he said, speaking with broadcast journalist Ivory Hecker.1
Hecker has a story in her own right, as she was fired from FOX 26 Houston in June 2021 after she interrupted a live news segment to tell viewers the station had prohibited her from sharing certain information, adding that she's "not the only reporter being subjected to this."2
Censorship is an ongoing problem that's reached unprecedented levels during the pandemic, and is the reason why you probably haven't heard of the MATH+ protocol, despite its immense success in saving lives over the last year. Varon has been at the frontlines throughout, marking his 366th consecutive day treating COVID-19 patients on March 20, 2021.3
From March 20, 2021, to May 21, 2021, there were 1,293 hospitalized COVID-19 patients at United Memorial Medical Center. Eighty-six of them died, resulting in a 6.7% death rate. That's about half the 12.5% death rate for hospitalized COVID-19 patients reported by the National Center for Health Statistics over the same period.4
Early on in the pandemic, five critical care physicians formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC), which developed the highly effective COVID-19 treatment protocol known as MATH+. Varon was among them, as was Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia. The protocol for hospitalized patients was initially based on the following:
In the beginning, only supportive care was offered to COVID-19 patients. Even today, people with COVID-19 are told to stay home and isolate until they're lacking oxygen, a recommendation that Marik believes is costing lives, since early treatment with MATH+ is so effective:5
"While we may not have the best answers, we do have some answers and to tell people to stay at home and isolate so they go blue is an absurdity that's actually causing lots of damage because we are now waiting for the virus to, in some people, cause the cytokine storm. And when they arrive with that state it is very difficult to reverse it and stop it and bring them back."
The MATH+ protocol led to high survival rates. Out of more than 100 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with the MATH+ protocol as of mid-April 2020, only two died. Both were in their 80s and had advanced chronic medical conditions.6 But according to Varon, despite their unusual successes, reporters weren't interested in why the patients at his hospital were more likely to survive.7
The physicians behind MATH+ are clear that their protocols are fluid and change in response to the data. As such, there have been two major changes since MATH+ was first released, one involving ivermectin and another involving hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
Ivermectin was added as a core medication in FLCCC's protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in October 2020.8 Ivermectin — a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that also has anti-inflammatory activity — has been found to reduce COVID-19 mortality by 81%.9 The drug is also safe, inexpensive and widely available, with decades of clinical usage suggesting it has a "high margin of safety."10
By December 2020, FLCCC, noting the extreme success of the drug, called for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.11,12 In one prevention trial, 58 volunteers took 12 milligrams of ivermectin once per month for four months.
Only four (6.96%) came down with mild COVID-19 symptoms during the May through August 2020 trial period.13 In comparison, 44 of 60 health care workers (73.3%) who had declined the medication were diagnosed with COVID-19. In June 2021, Varon and colleagues published a review in the American Journal of Therapeutics, which included meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19.14 The results were impressive, showing:15
The data are so strong that, at the India Institute of Medical Sciences, all health care workers now take two 0.3 mg/kg doses of ivermectin 72 hours apart, then repeat the dose monthly to prevent COVID-19.16 And in regions that have implemented ivermectin distribution campaigns, associated reductions in case fatality rates results.17 According to the review:18
"Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."
Marik believes that a mass distribution program of ivermectin, together with melatonin, vitamin D and aspirin, could end the pandemic. By assuming everyone is infected and treating with this safe combination of inexpensive compounds, Marik says, "We'll eliminate SARS-CoV-2. It will be gone."19 This isn't likely to happen, though, due to "economic and political factors that benefit from the ongoing pandemic."20
HCQ, a zinc ionophore, was part of the MATH+ protocol for the first six months of the pandemic. (They have recently swapped quercetin for HCQ.) At this time, the death rate for COVID-19 patients at Varon's UMMC was 4.4%, compared to a death rate of about 20% at other hospitals.21
Hecker first spoke with Varon about HCQ in August 2020, and he spoke favorably about using the controversial drug, noting that out of more than 300 COVID-19 patients treated at UMMC, they had a 95% success rate.22
Misinformation and outright lies were spun about HCQ, including fabricated research, in an apparent effort to suppress and prevent its widespread use. Other physicians, including Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a practicing physician in a Jewish community in Monroe, New York, have had great success using HCQ for COVID-19.23
However, in June 2020, the National Institutes of Health halted a clinical trial of HCQ after stating that, while the drug wasn't harmful, it also wasn't beneficial to hospitalized patients.24
Backlash ensued following the NIH announcement, and FLCCC phased out the use of HCQ in its protocols. Their latest I-MASK+ protocol, updated June 30, 2021,25 recommends quercetin instead. Quercetin, also a zinc ionophore, is an over-the-counter alternative to HCQ and works much like HCQ does. According to Marik:26
"Experimental and early clinical data (published in high impact journals) suggests that this compound has broad antiviral properties (including against coronavirus) and acting at various steps in the viral life cycle. It also appears to be a potent inhibitor of heat shock proteins (HSP 40 and 70) which are required for viral assembly."
In the video above, Hecker speaks with several recovered COVID-19 patients who received the MATH+ protocol. One, Manuel Espinoza, a urologist from Texas, was on a slow decline using the conventional COVID protocols. Then his wife found out about the MATH+ protocol online, and Espinoza was emergency airlifted to UMMC. "Within hours" of the treatment his health had turned around, he said, and "within days, just immense improvement."27
Yet, Varon said that every time he mentioned ivermectin on social media, "he went to Facebook jail." Reporters also told him, multiple times, that they were banned from reporting on certain COVID-19 drug treatments.28 Similar censorship was experienced by Dr. Pierre Kory, who was also a part of the group that formed FLCCC.
On December 8, 2020, Kory testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which held a hearing on "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution." He called on the NIH, CDC and FDA to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover:29,30
Despite his impassioned pleas and astonishing science to back them up, the treatment was not only ignored by the committee but promptly eviscerated.31 Meanwhile, media reports claimed ivermectin was unproven and the World Health Organization also refused to endorse it.
YouTube removed Kory's testimony, which had nearly 9 million views, calling it a danger to the community.32 Kory says that while his research on ivermectin has gotten lots of attention worldwide, it's gotten zero in the U.S. — "U.S. is on a media lockdown," he said.33 Varon agreed, telling Hecker that "no one" is asking about the MATH+ protocol. "Right now everyone is interested in vaccination."34
FLCCC's I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full,35 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19. FLCCC also has protocols for at-home prevention and early treatment, called I-MASS, which involves ivermectin, vitamin D3, a multivitamin and a digital thermometer to watch your body temperature in the prevention phase and ivermectin, melatonin, aspirin and antiseptic mouthwash for early at-home treatment.
Household or close contacts of COVID-19 patients may take ivermectin (18 milligrams, then repeat the dose in 48 hours) for post-exposure prevention.36 FLCCC also has a management protocol — I-RECOVER37 — for long haul COVID-19 syndrome. The protocols are translated into 23 different languages to provide widespread, free access to this lifesaving information, including how to get ivermectin.38
FLCCC remains hopeful that ivermectin will be formally adopted into national or international COVID-19 treatment guidelines in the near future. But, as Hecker noted, the inexpensive medication faces a major hurdle:39
"Had there been an existing known, safe and effective treatment for COVID-19, Emergency Use Authorization of a vaccine for the virus would be prohibited by law. Could that have been part of the motivation for the strange censorship of certain COVID-19 treatments that we witnessed over the past year at news and social media corporations?"
We’ve known from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic that children were at exceptionally low risk for hospitalization and death from this infection. Despite that, massive efforts are underway to get a needle in the arm of every child.
At present, COVID-19 injections are authorized for emergency use in children as young as 12 in the U.S.,1 and vaccine makers are moving forward with plans to get authorization for children as young as 6 months.
Fortunately, there are glimmers of hope, here and there. In the U.K., children will not be eligible to receive a COVID shot unless they have underlying conditions that make them more vulnerable to infection or live with a high-risk person. As reported by The Guardian, July 19, 2021:2
“The opinion of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) expands the eligibility for children, after a previous decision that vulnerable 16- and 17-year-olds could get vaccinated … [T]he advisory body said:
‘The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain. At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks.’”
Vulnerabilities that would make children over the age of 12 eligible for COVID injection include severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and multiple or severe learning disabilities.
If you ask me, this is a rather curious list, seeing how neurodevelopmental problems are unlikely to make you more prone to viral infection. We already know the high-risk factors for COVID-19 are things like obesity and multiple chronic diseases — not neurological problems and intellectual deficiencies.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this list is uncomfortably similar to that of Hitler’s T4 program. This was an involuntary euthanasia campaign where the incurably sick, physically and mentally handicapped, psychologically ill and elderly were selectively murdered by the medical establishment.
Overall, the risk of COVID-19 to children of all ages is so small as to be inconsequential, learning disabilities and chromosomal irregularities or not. A study3 posted July 7, 2021, which looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic, found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived.
In all, between March 2020 and February 2021, only 25 children under the age of 18 died directly as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (An additional 61 children had positive test results when they died, but their death was attributed to other causes.) This gives us an absolute mortality rate for children of 2 per 1 million. As noted by the authors:4
“SARS-CoV-2 is very rarely fatal in CYP [children and young people], even among those with underlying comorbidities. These findings are important to guide families, clinicians and policy makers about future shielding and vaccination.”
In the United States, a total of 335 children under 18 have died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate.5 The CDC estimates the infection fatality rate from COVID-19 among children zero to 17 years old is 20 per 1 million.6 This is likely a significant overestimation, however.
In the British study above, they specifically differentiated between those who actually died from COVID-19, meaning there was no other underlying condition that contributed to their death, and those who simply tested positive at the time of death but died from other causes.
This has not been done in the U.S., so we don’t know how many of those 335 children had underlying conditions that contributed or directly caused their death. As noted by Marty Makary in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece dated July 19, 2021:7
“Without these data, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] decided in May that the benefits of two-dose vaccination outweigh the risks for all kids 12 to 15.
I’ve written hundreds of peer-reviewed medical studies, and I can think of no journal editor who would accept the claim that 335 deaths resulted from a virus without data to indicate if the virus was incidental or causal, and without an analysis of relevant risk factors such as obesity.”
To remedy this shortcoming, Makary and colleagues at Johns Hopkins teamed up with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze the health insurance data of approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and August 2020.
As it turns out, none of the children who died were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer. “If that trend holds, it has significant implications for healthy kids and whether they need two vaccine doses,” Makary says.8
Overall, children appear naturally immune against COVID-199 and are not significant vectors of transmission either.10 So, there’s really no need to place draconian COVID restrictions on children out of fear for their own safety or anyone else’s.
Makary also points out that we’ve already established that COVID-19 mortality statistics have been vastly overinflated in the U.S.11 In early June 2021, Alameda County in California lowered its reported death toll from COVID-19 by 25%, after state health officials insisted that deaths only be attributed to COVID-19 if SARS-CoV-2 infection was a direct or contributing factor.12
As detailed in “CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities,” investigation has revealed the CDC inflated fatalities by as much as 96%. They did this by illegally altering the way deaths are reported. Had the old guidelines remained in place, the COVID-19 death toll as of August 23, 2020, in the U.S. would have been 9,684.
As you may recall, in late August 2020, the CDC admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.13 As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 COVID-related fatalities. Multiplied by 6%, you get an actual death toll of 9,684.
It’s hard to believe anyone would be willing to shut down commerce in an entire state over such a number. It’s also hard to believe people would line up to take an unproved and dangerous experimental gene modification injection based on a mortality risk this low.
Unfortunately, we’ve been lied to for so long, many are still effectively brainwashed with the continuous propaganda from mainstream news and public health officials that have long since abandoned their commitment to integrity.
Mainstream media have since the very beginning ignored and hidden data showing COVID-19 isn’t as bad as initially feared. And now they’re ignoring and hiding data showing the COVID shots are worse than suspected. Wired Magazine, for example, blames parents’ apprehension to have their children injected with experimental gene therapy on right-wing politics rather than actual data.14
Wired also reports that more parents have volunteered their children for clinical COVID-19 trials than trial sites have spaces for which, to me, suggests many are still clueless about the risks of these injections, as well as the risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“Unvaccinated children of a certain age greater than 2 years old should be wearing masks. No doubt about that. That’s the way to protect them from getting infected, because if they do, they can then spread the infection to someone else.”
It’s tiring, all of these outrageous and health damaging lies — no doubt about that. Another thing there’s no doubt about is that Fauci has changed his mind on the usefulness of masks more times than some of us have actually donned said masks.
In response to Fauci’s declaration that children need to be forced to wear masks to protect adults, New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz tweeted, “I can’t believe it’s July 2021 and this man is still spouting nonsense on our televisions without any serious follow-up questions. What an embarrassment.”16
Getting back to the issue of COVID jabs, all available data suggest COVID-19 is of no significant concern for children. Their risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 is actually lower than their risk of being hospitalized or dying from the flu.17
For comparison, more than 2,000 American children and teens died in car crashes in 2019,18 and accidental drowning claims the lives of nearly 1,000 children each year.19 Even unintentional drug overdoses claim more lives than COVID-19 in this age group. In 2016, unintentional drug poisoning killed 761 children.20
Why isn’t there a national outrage about these drug-related deaths, seeing how the 2016 statistics show that more than TWICE the number of children most likely have died from overdoses during the pandemic than supposedly died from COVID-19?
There’s also no solid evidence to assume children pose a transmission risk to adults. Besides, 90% of American seniors have now received their COVID shots,21 so by the logic of the official narrative, the most vulnerable adults now have the best herd immunity available and are individually protected with the best modern medicine supposedly has to offer.
Importantly, since children’s risk is so minuscule, there’s really no legal framework for an emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children. Still, the Food and Drug Administration and vaccine makers push forward with that exact plan. Hopefully, they’ll be stopped.
July 19, 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors filed a motion to stop the emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children under 18, anyone with natural immunity and anyone who has not been given proper informed consent.22,23
In their motion, the group points out that the prerequisite health emergency no longer exists, that COVID shots do not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, that adequate treatment alternatives exist, and that the known risks of COVID gene modifying injections outweigh any potential benefit for these groups.
They also include a sworn statement by a CDC whistleblower, a computer programmer, who claims the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths by a factor of five or more. The whistleblower estimates the number of deaths actually may have been around 45,000 as of July 9, 2021.
An opinion piece in The BMJ24 by Peter Doshi, Elia Abi-Jaoude and Claudina Michal-Teitelbaum also highlights why we must not force children to take the COVID shot simply because it might help vulnerable adults. They write:25
“While there is wide recognition that children’s risk of severe covid-19 is low, many believe that mass vaccination of children may … also prevent onward transmission, indirectly protecting vulnerable adults and helping end the pandemic. However, there are multiple assumptions that need to be examined when judging calls to vaccinate children against covid-19 …
Even if one assumes protection against severe covid-19, given its very low incidence in children, an extremely high number would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one severe case. Meanwhile, a large number of children with very low risk for severe disease would be exposed to vaccine risks, known and unknown.
Thus far, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine has been judged by Israel’s government as likely linked to symptomatic myocarditis, with an estimated incidence between 1 in 3000 to 1 in 6000 in men ages 16 to 24. Furthermore, the long term effects of gene-based vaccines, which involve novel vaccine platforms, remain essentially unknown …
Given all these considerations, the assertion that vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 will protect adults remains hypothetical.
Even if we were to assume this protection does exist, the number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19 — considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid — would be extraordinarily high.
Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavorably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events. A separate, but crucial question is one of ethics. Should society be considering vaccinating children, subjecting them to any risk, not for the purpose of benefiting them but in order to protect adults? We believe the onus is on adults to protect themselves.”
Doshi was even more blunt in his June 10, 2021, public comment26 to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. There, he pointed out that the FDA can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population.
This means that even if adults were to benefit, the COVID shots cannot be authorized for children unless children will actually benefit from it themselves. Since when, in the history of public health, have children been sacrificed to protect the sick and elderly? Public health authorities have completely reversed the conventional risk/reward analysis.
In the case of COVID-19 injections, children cannot benefit, seeing how they only have a 0.005% risk of death in the first place. Meanwhile, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s biodistribution study27,28 raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility.
Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s no need to rush the approval of these injections for children.
While the exact number of deaths from these COVID shots remains uncertain — VAERS reports 12,313 deaths29 as of July 13, 2021, and the CDC whistleblower estimates the death toll at 45,000 or higher — we can unequivocally state that the number is record-breaking high. There’s no vaccine in modern medical history that even comes close. The risk is extraordinary, which is precisely why we must protect our children from it.
Speaking of the CDC, I just discovered it slashed the number of deaths reported to VAERS from 12,313 as of July 13, 2021, to 6,079. In what appears to be a deliberate attempt at deception, the CDC “rolled back” its July 19, 2021, adverse events report to statistics from the previous week. I’ll explain. Take note of the specific dates and death totals in each of the following excerpts. The July 13 report reads as follows:30
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
The original July 19 report (saved on Wayback) initially read as follows:31
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Please note, the death toll more than doubled in a single week. That original July 19 report was then changed to this. The date on the report is still July 19:32
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
At a time when accuracy and transparency is of such critical importance for informed consent, it’s beyond shocking to see the CDC engage in this kind of deception. Parents everywhere need to realize that the CDC and other agencies and their officials are deliberately downplaying and hiding the enormity of the danger their children will face if they take this injection.
I implore you. Please spend ample time looking at all the evidence before you allow your child to participate in this heinous experiment. I understand that the inclination to trust our “gold standard” health agencies is great, but trust must be continuously earned. It’s not a one-time done deal.
At this point, having a skeptical eye and double-checking every claim is of paramount importance. Your child’s health and life may depend on you not being gullible.
Every totalitarian system in history has used the power of visual propaganda to generate a new "reality," one that reifies its official ideology, remaking the world in its own paranoid image. New Normal totalitarianism is no exception. For example, take a look at this panel copied from the landing page of The Guardian — one of the global-capitalist ruling classes' primary propaganda organs — on July 17, 2021 …
This isn't just "biased" or "sensationalist" journalism. It is systematic official propaganda, no different than that disseminated by every other totalitarian system throughout history. Here's the one from the following day …
Forget about the content of the articles for a moment and just take in the cumulative visual effect. Official propaganda isn't just information, misinformation, and disinformation.
It is actually less about getting us to believe things than it is about creating an official reality, and imposing it on society by force. When you're setting out to conjure up a new "reality," images are extremely powerful tools, just as powerful, if not more powerful, than words. Here are a few more that you might recall …
Again, the goal of this type of propaganda is not simply to deceive or terrorize the public. That is part of it, of course, but the more important part is forcing people to look at these images, over and over, hour after hour, day after day, at home, at work, on the streets, on television, on the Internet, everywhere.
This is how we create "reality." We represent our beliefs and values to ourselves, and to each other, with images, words, rituals, and other symbols and social behaviors. Essentially, we conjure our "reality" into being like actors rehearsing and performing a play … the more we all believe it, the more convincing it is.
This is also why mandatory masks have been essential to the roll-out of the New Normal ideology. Forcing the masses to wear medical-looking masks in public was a propaganda masterstroke.
Simply put, if you can force people to dress up like they're going to work in the infectious disease ward of a hospital every day for 17 months … presto! You've got yourself a new "reality" … a new, pathologized-totalitarian "reality," a paranoid-psychotic, cult-like "reality" in which formerly semi-rational people have been reduced to nonsense-babbling lackeys who are afraid to go outside without permission from "the authorities," and are injecting their children with experimental "vaccines."
The sheer power of the visual image of those masks, and being forced to repeat the ritual behavior of putting them on, has been nearly irresistible. Yes, I know that you have been resisting. So have I. But we are the minority. Denying the power of what we are up against might make you feel better, but it will get us nowhere, or, in any event, nowhere good.
The fact is, the vast majority of the public — except for people in Sweden, Florida, and assorted other officially non-existent places — have been robotically performing this theatrical ritual, and harassing those who refuse to do so, and thus collectively simulating an "apocalyptic plague."
The New Normals — i.e., those still wearing masks outdoors, shrieking over meaningless "cases," bullying everyone to get "vaccinated," and collaborating with the segregation of the "Unvaccinated" — are not behaving the way they're behaving because they are stupid.
They are behaving that way because they're living in a new "reality" that has been created for them over the course of the last 17 months by a massive official propaganda campaign, the most extensive and effective in the history of propaganda.
In other words, to put it bluntly, we are in a propaganda war, and we're losing. We can't match the propaganda power of the corporate media and New Normal governments, but that doesn't mean we can't fight back. We can, and must, at every opportunity. Recently, readers have been asking me how to do that. So, OK, here are a few simple suggestions.
The vast majority of obedient New Normals are not fanatical totalitarians. They're scared, and weak, so they are following orders, adjusting their minds to the new official "reality."
Most of them do not perceive themselves as adherents of a totalitarian system or as segregationists, although that is what they are. They perceive themselves as "responsible" people following sensible "health directives" to "protect" themselves and others from the virus, and its ever-multiplying mutant "variants." They perceive the "Unvaccinated" as a minority of dangerous, irrational "conspiracy theorist" extremists, who want to kill them and their families.
When we tell them that we simply want our constitutional rights back, and to not be forced into being "vaccinated," and censored and persecuted for expressing our views, they do not believe us. They think we're lying. They perceive us as threats, as aggressors, as monsters, as strangers among them, who need to be dealt with … which is exactly how the authorities want them to perceive us.
We need to try to change this perception, not by complying or being "polite" to them. On the contrary, we need to become more confrontational. No, not violent. Confrontational. There is actually a difference, though the "woke" will deny it.
To begin with, we need to call things what they are. The "vaccination pass" system is a segregation system. It is segregationism. Call it what it is. Those cooperating with it are segregationists. They're not "helping" or "protecting" anybody from anything. They are segregationists, pure and simple. Refer to them as "segregationists." Don't let them hide behind their terminology. Confront them with the fact of what they are.
Same goes for the rest of CovidSpeak. COVID "cases," "deaths," and "vaccines" get scare quotes. Healthy people are not medical cases. If COVID didn't kill someone, they are not a COVID death, period. "Vaccines" that do not behave like vaccines, and that are killing and crippling tens of thousands of people, and that have not been adequately tested for safety, and that are being indiscriminately forced on everyone, do not get to be called vaccines.
OK, here comes the big idea, which will only work if enough people do it. You probably won't like it, but what the hell, here goes …
This is the red inverted triangle the Nazis used in the concentration camps to designate their political opponents and members of the anti-Nazi resistance. Make one. Make it out of fabric, paper, or whatever material you have at hand. Put a big, black "U" in the center of it to signify "Unvaccinated." Wear it in public, conspicuously.
When people ask you what it means and why you are wearing it in public, tell them. Encourage them to do the same, assuming they're not New Normal segregationists, in which case … well, that will be a different conversation, but go ahead and tell them too.
That's it. That's the whole big idea. That, and whatever else you are already doing. The triangle is not meant to replace that. It's just one simple way for people to express their opposition to the totalitarian, pseudo-medical segregation system that is currently being implemented … despite all that other stuff you've been doing, and that I have been doing, for 17 months.
All right, I can already feel your disappointment. You thought I was going to propose a frontal assault on Klaus Schwab's secret castle, or a guerilla naval attack on Bill Gates' yacht. Cathartic as either of those endeavors might be, they would be (a) futile, and (b) suicidal. Frustrating as it has been for all of us, this is still a battle for hearts and minds. Essentially, it is a War on Reality (or between two "realities" if you prefer). It is being fought in people's heads, not in the streets.
So, let me try to sell you on this red triangle thing. The point of a visual protest like this is to force the New Normals to confront a different representation of what they, and we, are. A representation that accurately reflects reality.
No, of course we are not in concentration camps — so, please, spare me the irate literalist emails — but we are being segregated, scapegoated, censored, humiliated, and otherwise abused, not for any legitimate public health reasons, but because of our political dissent, because we refuse to mindlessly follow orders and conform to their new official ideology.
The New Normals need to be forced to perceive their beliefs and actions in that context, even if only for a few fleeting moments at the mall, or in the grocery store, or wherever.
Think of it this way … as I explained above, they are basically performing a theatrical event, conjuring up a "pandemic reality" with words, actions, and pseudo-medical stage props. What we need to become is that asshole in the audience who destroys the suspension of disbelief and reminds everyone that they're sitting in a theater, and not in 15th Century Denmark, by loudly taking a call on his phone right in the middle of Hamlet's soliloquy.
Seriously, we need to become that asshole as conspicuously as possible, as often as possible, to disrupt the show the New Normals are performing … and to remind them what they are actually doing, and who they are actually doing it to.
Look at the white people in the tweet above tormenting that girl who is just trying to go to school like any other student. The New Normals do not want to perceive themselves that way, as a pack of fanatical, hate-drunk segregationists, but that is what they are, because it is what they are doing … but it is not what most of them are by nature.
Yes, some people are congenitally sociopathic, but no one is inherently totalitarian. We are not born fascists or segregationists. We have to be programmed to be that way. That's what the propaganda is for, not to mention all the other authoritarian conditioning we are subjected to from the time we are children.
Or that's the gamble, or the leap of faith, behind the inverted red triangle thing. It is a basic non-violent civil-disobedience tactic, which works on people who still have a conscience and haven't gone full totalitarian yet.
Granted, it might not work this time — we are already at the stage where they are going to imprison restaurant owners for serving the "Unvaccinated" — but it might, and what have we got to lose?
C.J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
Omega-3 fats are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). Your body uses these fats for a variety of functions, such as blood clotting, brain and eye health, digestion and muscle activity.1,2,3
Humans evolved on a diet of omega-6 to omega 3 fats in a ratio of close to 1-to-1.4 However, in the past several decades, the ratio in the stand Western diet measured between 15-to-1 and 16.7-to-1 in 20065 and 10 years later measured at 20-to-1 or greater.6 This shift began during the Industrial Revolution when people began eating foods rich in vegetable oils and cereal grains were fed to livestock, raising the levels of omega-6 fats in meat.7
Omega-3 fats can be broken down into three main categories — alpha linoleic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).8 ALA is a precursor to EPA and DHA, but it can only be converted in amounts less than 5%.9 DHA and EPA are long-chain omega-3 fats.
You must get each form of omega-3 fat from foods or dietary supplements. ALA is plant-based and found mostly in flaxseed, walnuts, chia seeds and hemp seeds.10 Bioavailable DHA and EPA are found in fish and other marine-based foods.11
There is mounting research that drives home the importance of animal-based omega-3 fats for heart health.12 Deficiency can leave you vulnerable to chronic disease and may increase your risk of poor outcomes in COVID-19.
As I mentioned, the objective is to bring your ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids as close to 1-to-1 as possible. Many foods have omega-3 fats, but the ratio of omega-6 to omega 3 is high, so foods other than marine-based fish cannot effectively raise your omega-3 levels.
Farmers used to harvest their eggs from chickens that were free ranging and allowed to forage for their food. For the most part, consumers today have the option of buying four different types of eggs at the grocery store.13,14 They are:
Analysis and comparison of fatty acid composition in conventionally raised and outdoor chickens allowed to forage for insects and plants is vastly different.17 One study published by Cambridge University18 analyzed the difference in the eggs of hens allowed to forage for insects and plants against those fed a commercial diet and kept in cages.
The researchers controlled for the differences in chicken breeds by using sister hens and splitting them into groups. The hens were fed over six weeks before the eggs were analyzed. The researchers split the hens allowed to forage into three groups where one group had access to alfalfa, the second to red-and-white clover and the third to a mix of cool-season grasses.
At the end of the study, they found the concentrations of fatty acids and vitamin A did not differ in the three pastured groups, but those that foraged on grass had 23% more vitamin E then those that foraged on clover.
When they compared the eggs from the caged hens against the pastured eggs they found the hens allowed to forage had “twice as much vitamin E and long-chain omega-3 fats, 2.5-fold more total omega-3 fatty acids, and less than half the ratio of omega-6:omega-3 fatty acids.”19
A later study20 also demonstrated that hens allowed to forage outdoors laid eggs with vitamin D content that was up to four times higher than those who were kept indoors. They compared vitamin D content from the hens exposed to sunlight against free-range eggs purchased at the supermarket and found those from the grocer had relatively low vitamin D content.
Scientific evidence shows that there have been significant consequences as humans began to eat a diet rich in omega-6 fats and low in omega-3s. The majority of omega-6 fats used to come from nuts and seeds. However current intake comes from processed foods and oxidized vegetable oils.21
This imbalance in omega fats is one route to inflammatory disease, including heart disease, diabetes and cancer. One primary source of omega-6 fats in the American diet is soybean oil, which accounts for 60% of all vegetable oils found in processed foods, salad dressings, snacks and margarine.22
Researchers have linked diets high in soybean oil with Type 2 diabetes and obesity.23 Both of these health conditions are associated with heart disease, impaired cognition, neuropathy and early death.
In recent years it has become increasingly clear that one of the most damaging components in the modern diet is processed vegetable oils, including soybean oil. The biological damage they cause may be even worse than that triggered by refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, researchers say.24
The reason is because the oils trigger mitochondrial dysfunction that drives disease processes and several studies25,26,27 have provided scientific evidence of this. The good news is that replacing dangerous oils with healthy saturated fats can go a long way towards boosting your health and reducing your risk of chronic disease.
Unfortunately, many health authority authorities insist that omega-6 rich oils like soybean, corn and canola oil are healthier than saturated animal fats such as pasture-raised butter and lard. This myth has been a tough one to dismantle, despite the evidence against it. To learn more about how processed vegetable oils can harm your health see, “The Case Against Processed Vegetable Oils.”
There are significant benefits to balancing your omega-6 and omega-3 ratio. For example, research28 published in 2018 confirmed omega-3 fat can reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality. Participants with an omega-3 index in the highest quintile had a total mortality 34% lower than those in the lowest quintile, and a 39% lower risk for cardiovascular disease.
As detailed in “More Data Support Heart Healthy Benefits of Omega-3s,” research has found fish oil consumption lowered the risk of all-cause mortality by 13% and cardiovascular mortality by 16%.
DHA is crucial for your brain health. Without enough, your nerve cells become stiff and more prone to inflammation as omega-3 fats are substituted with omega-6. Nerve cells that are rigid and inflamed have lower levels of proper neurotransmission and cells become compromised.29
Low levels of DHA have been linked to memory loss and Alzheimer's disease,30 and some studies suggest degenerative brain diseases may potentially be reversible with sufficient DHA.31,32 Other health benefits include:
Reducing inflammation — This can be helpful for those suffering with rheumatoid arthritis by reducing stiffness and pain.33 Women who suffer from menstrual pain may also experience milder symptoms.34,35
Optimizing muscle building and bone strength — Omega-3 fats help your body build healthy muscle mass, including people suffering from cancer who may experience cachexia.36 Omega-3 fats can also help improve your bone strength by improving the utilization of calcium in your body. This may lead to a reduction in the development of osteoporosis.37,38
Improving metabolic syndrome39 and insulin resistance.40
Improving mental health and behavior — Demonstrated benefits have been shown for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including reduced aggression, hyperactivity,41 impulsivity,42 oppositional behavior43 and restlessness.44 Omega-3 is associated with lowered risk for other neurological/cognitive dysfunction as well, including: memory loss, brain aging, learning disorders and ADHD,45 autism and dyslexia.46
Protecting your vision — DHA is a major structural element in your eye and brain.47 Low levels of DHA may increase your risk for age related macular degeneration.48
Reducing your risk of kidney disease49 and colon cancer.50
Like with most other biomarkers, it's impossible to know your omega-3 fatty acid index without testing. The omega-3 index provides the most accurate measurement in the body and should ideally be above 8%.51 The test measures the amount of omega-3 in the red blood cells as a reflection of how much is found in the rest of the body.
Basically, the test measures the average of your intake based on the lifespan of a red blood cell over 120 days. This means it is not influenced by recent meals, but rather an average of the past months. Researchers have used it as an index to analyze data, including that of the Framingham study52 and the Women's Health Initiative.53
Maintaining a level in the range that is associated with low risk can reduce your potential chance of heart disease. An index below 4% has a high risk of heart disease, those with an index from 4% to 8% have an intermediate risk and those with an index greater than 8% have the lowest risk for coronary heart disease.54
Another study55 used randomized control trial results to assess the effects of supplementation on telomere length and oxidative stress. The data suggested that telomere length increases with a decreasing ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. The researchers concluded that even over a short time, a change in the ratio has an impact on cell aging, inflammation and oxidative stress.
If you discover you need more omega-3 after getting tested, consider the different ways you can raise your level without adding toxins. Strategies include reducing or eliminating processed foods as they are high in omega-6 fats and switching to foods that have a lower ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, such as locally raised, outdoor eggs. These are also great sources of omega-3:
• Fish — Small, cold-water fatty fish such as mackerel, anchovies and sardines are excellent sources that have a low risk of hazardous contamination. Wild-caught Alaskan salmon is also low in mercury and other environmental toxins.
Unfortunately, much of the fish supply is heavily polluted with industrial waste, so it is extremely important to be selective, choosing fish high in healthy fats and low in contaminants, such as those mentioned above.
• Krill oil — Krill oil is my preferred choice as a supplement because it has the indispensable animal-based DHA and EPA your body needs, and in a form that's less prone to oxidation.
With the help of phospholipids, the nutrients in krill oil are carried directly to your cell membranes where they are more readily absorbed. Additionally, they may cross your blood-brain barrier to reach important brain structures.
While the following sources may be tempting because they are readily available and cost less than the ones mentioned above, I strongly advise avoiding:
• Farmed salmon — It contains about half the omega-3 levels of wild salmon, is often given antibiotics to treat bacterial infections, and fed a genetically engineered diet of corn and soy products and feed that also may contain or contaminated with pesticides and chicken feathers, poultry litter, genetically modified yeast, chicken fat and dyes.56
• Large carnivorous fish — Marlin, swordfish and tuna (including canned tuna), for example, tend to contain some of the highest concentrations of mercury,57 a known neurotoxin.58
• Fish oil — While fish oil may appear to be a convenient and relatively inexpensive way to increase your intake of omega-3 fats, it typically delivers insufficient antioxidant support. It is also highly prone to oxidation,59 leading to the formation of harmful free radicals.