Health, Fitness,Dite plan, health tips,athletic club,crunch fitness,fitness studio,lose weight,fitness world,mens health,aerobic,personal trainer,lifetime fitness,nutrition,workout,fitness first,weight loss,how to lose weight,exercise,24 hour fitness,
By Dr. Mercola
Over the years, I've written a number of articles outing industry front groups1 such as the Genetic Literacy Project, the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH),2 Science 2.0, GMO Answers, Independent Women's Forum, Science Codex, Center for Consumer Freedom and the Center for Inquiry.
Once you start to investigate these front groups, you'll find the same names appearing again and again, cowriting articles, interviewing each other and referring to each other's work in a closed loop.
I've also written about academics and journalists who, while presenting themselves as independent experts, are actually shills for industry. This is a fairly close-knit group of individuals, so the worst actors are not hard to identify based on their associations.
Well-established actors include Forbes contributor Kavin Senapathy,3 Henry Miller, Steven Salzberg,4 Bruce Chassy, Jon Entine,5,6 Kevin Folta, Keith Kloor7 and Mark Lynas.
In the TED Talk above, award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson discusses strategies used by industry to manipulate public opinion and steer online discussion.
A strategy that has become phenomenally popular with the advent of social media is astroturfing, which is when a special interests group creates a fake grassroots campaign for or against a particular agenda. You might think it's a group of moms devoted to children's health that is touting the benefits of GMOs or vaccines, for example, when in fact the campaign is run by industry.
Increasingly over the past year or so you may have seen a number of articles simultaneously criticizing both the "anti-vaxxers" and "anti-GMO movement," making contemptuous and sometimes wildly insulting comments about people who question the safety of either of these industries and their wares.
While GMOs and vaccines may seem like strange bedfellows, the cross-linking of these two industries in propaganda material is neither accidental nor haphazard.
In a May 18, 2017 Forbes article,8 Senapathy (one well-known mouthpiece for the GMO industry) took aim at the "anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements," saying they're "inextricably linked and cause preventable suffering."
"The thoroughly answered question of whether vaccines cause autism isn't really a question outside of conspiracy-theorist circles," Senapathy writes.
"The body of evidence shows that vaccination has … vastly reduced suffering and death … and that vaccines don't cause autism, cancer, dementia or long term health problems, and that any minute risk is vastly outweighed by benefits to individuals and society.
Yet with the backing of prominent leaders like Robert DeNiro and Robert Kennedy Jr., anti-vaccine groups fuel common narratives that keep herd immunity down, directly leading to suffering and death.
Now with Donald Trump embracing vaccine skeptics, the anti-vaccine movement has earned a hallowed place on the shelf next to other tinfoil hat clad schools of thought.
The question of the safety of genetically engineered crops (GMOs) has been answered just as thoroughly, and the anti-GMO movement deserves its own place on the same shelf, not just for being wrong but for its role in unconscionable suffering …
She goes on to point out how similar the communication tactics are between vaccine and GMO detractors. Ironically, her article reveals just as much if not more about the biotech and vaccine industries' messaging tactics. You can go through her article and check off numerous boxes for how to spot a piece of industry propaganda.
That includes the claim that the science is settled (which automatically precludes the need for further discussion), citing a fellow industry shill (in this case Kloor), using strong, derogatory language when describing those who disagree with industry talking points, making ample references to "conspiracy theories" and "other tinfoil hat clad schools of thought."
Whenever you hear or read that someone is a "quack," and that "the science has been settled," or that something is "science-based," it's probably a smear campaign created by an astroturf group, industry front group or paid shill. In fact, the seven techniques of propaganda have been clearly delineated and are used without exception by most industries. As noted by writer Morgan Crouch in his article, "What Are the Seven Techniques of Propaganda?" these include:9
While Senapathy tries to show how those who question the safety of either GMOs or vaccines are all alike — that is, tinfoil hat-wearing lunatics who follow flat earth theories in their spare time — what she ultimately achieves is a perfect example of industry PR.
This systematic messaging strategy has been carefully developed, and is known to have a penetrating psychological effect. Both the vaccine and biotechnology industries use the same terminology and the same psychological assault strategies to make you feel like you're in the wrong — or worse.
In her article, Senapathy basically accuses all vaccine and GMO safety advocates of being killers, merely for asking questions and not settling for non-answers, and doing what they think is right for their own health and that of their children.
Another article10 that connects the vaccine and chemical technology industries was recently published by The Feed.
In it, Ashleigh Morse, Ph.D., whose training centers on psychology and the influence of environmental cues on decision-making, and who says she works as a consultant to "a range of clients" in the field of science communication and public health,11 argues that juries are incapable of assessing the validity of scientific evidence presented in court, or the validity of the scientific methods used.
Specifically, Morse — whose professional credits include a single published research paper listed on her LinkedIN bio on the role of opioid processes in reward and decision-making — is referring to the recent jury verdict against Monsanto, but she goes on to link that to vaccine science. "When juries decide on the science, we get autism linked to vaccines and the Monsanto verdict," she writes.
Then there's the curious claim that the Russians are to blame for Americans' lack of faith in vaccine safety.12 According to a recent paper13 published in the American Journal of Public Health, Russian trolls and Soviet-directed Twitter bots promoted anti-vaccine information on social media to "amplify the vaccine debate" and create dissent in the U.S.
According to the authors, "Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination," and "Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate." Those two sentences are interesting and revealing indeed.
In a nutshell, they're saying that by providing anti-vaccine content, these bots made it seem as though there was actually something to discuss when, in the opinion of the authors, no discussion about vaccine safety should occur at all.
Apparently, it is their view that the vaccine debate is "illegitimate," since there's "public consensus" on vaccines (refer back to the bandwagon strategy, No. 6 in the propaganda list above).
In other words, everyone knows vaccines are safe; the science is settled, so there's no valid reason to question it. Summing up the alleged Russian bots' efforts to sway public opinion against vaccination, the authors referred to it as "weaponized health communication."
Coincidentally, the vaccine paper above was submitted for publication shortly after news stories began circulating claiming the Russians were behind anti-GMO rhetoric.14 Minnesota Farm Living writes:15
"Researchers from Iowa State University (Shawn Dorius and Carolyn Lawrence-Dill) wanted to better understand the controversy around genetically engineered food.16 The issue is with the overwhelming belief in the science community is that GMOs are safe, consumers still question their safety. Dorius and Lawrence-Dill wanted to find out why.
What they found was surprising. The ISU researchers looked at not only how U.S. publications portrayed GMOs but also looked at the American versions of RT and Sputknik, two Russian publications. They counted how many times the term 'GMO' was used in different publications …
They went a step further and analyzed the tone of each article. What they found is the Russian publications were overwhelming anti-GMO. The articles talked negatively about environmental risks, nutrition concerns, and health risks of GMOs."
Here, the author links to the "Are GMOs Safe?" page on the Genetic Literacy Project's website as evidence to support GMO safety. But, the Genetic Literacy Project is a well-known front group for the GMO industry and hardly a reliable source of impartial information.
As for why the Russians would want to spread anti-GMO rhetoric in the U.S., the study authors note Russia has an interest in creating division among the American people to weaken the country as a whole, and to promote their own agricultural exports, as Russia banned GMOs in 2016 and is trying to increase its exports of organic food.
In the Minnesota Farm Living article cited above, you can see the telltale industry rhetoric in the sentence, "the overwhelming belief in the science community is that GMOs are safe, [yet] consumers still question their safety." The reality is there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.
That is in fact the title of a scientific statement17 published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, January 24, 2015. The statement, aptly titled "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety," was signed by 300 scientists, researchers, physicians and scholars.
What's more, the paper states that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is in actuality "an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated," and that such a claim "is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue."
In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still does not possess any evidence demonstrating safety because they do not do scientific reviews. And even if they did, hundreds of scientists say there's no evidence demonstrating that genetically engineered foods are safe, and a number of independent studies have raised serious health concerns.
To learn more about how GMOs were introduced into the food supply without safety testing, see my two-part interview with attorney Steven Druker, author of "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth." (Part 1, Part 2.)
The reason for the joining of PR forces between the vaccine and biotech industries becomes clearer when you take into account the fact that GMOs are moving into the vaccine industry. The 2016 article,18 "GMOs Lead the Fight Against Zika, Ebola and the Next Unknown Pandemic," published in The Conversation, asserts that GMOs play a "vital role" in medicine, adding:
"Most modern biomedical advances, especially the vaccines used to eradicate disease and protect against pandemics … rely on the same molecular biology tools that are used to create genetically modified organisms.
To protect the public, scientists have embraced GMO technology to quickly study new health threats, manufacture enough protective vaccines, and monitor and even predict new outbreaks."
Additionally, scientists are also exploring the possibility of vaccinating plants against pests as an alternative to using pesticides.19 In other words, it's really quite crucial for these two bedfellows, strange as their joining may seem at first, to get people to embrace both genetic engineering and vaccines.
That's why we're now seeing more and more articles deriding both vaccine and GMO safety advocates in the same piece, whether it necessarily makes sense to do so or not.
Both of these industries are using the exact same messaging strategies — because so far they have worked — to achieve the same aim: Shame those who dare question the safety of either, and make them feel like ignorant outcasts and social misfits, thereby shutting down the conversation.
In my five-part "Ghost in the Machine" series, I discuss the many ways in which big industries manipulate science, and how they've captured our regulatory agencies and manipulate our political system. Here's a listing of the series, in case you missed any of them:
A feature common to both the vaccine industry and the biotech industry is the use of legislation to preempt your rights and force you to use their products whether you want to or not, and without regard for the health consequences.
In recent years, I've written extensively about the vaccine industry's attempts to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions across the U.S. In some cases, they've succeeded. In others, they've lost, but efforts to strip every American of their right to informed consent and medical freedom is ongoing.
The chemical technology industry is following the same agenda. One of the latest infringements on your rights is a provision in the Farm Bill that would block local governments from regulating pesticide use. The U.S. House committee approved the draft back in April. As noted by Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides:20
"This is really a backdoor attempt to interfere with state governments and local governments. I think the trend is for local governments to engage on this issue. This would undermine that."
A common corporate tactic is to use "third-party experts" to bring the industry's message to the public under the cloak of independent opinion or expertise (No. 4, "Testimonial"). The idea is that academic types are far more credible than industry employees when it comes to defending the industry's position.
A well-known spokesperson for the GMO industry is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California. A "No on 37" advertisement had to be pulled off the air because Miller was fraudulently identified as being part of the Stanford University faculty.
Last year, Miller was outed yet again — this time as a ghostwriter for Monsanto. Forbes fired Miller when it became clear he had submitted ghostwritten material. On a relevant side note, Senapathy has cowritten articles with Miller, which is why some of her Forbes articles ended up being deleted as well,21 and the foreword for her book "Fear Babe" was written by Folta, a University of Florida professor who hid his financial ties to Monsanto.
The Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) discovery against Monsanto was led by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). Proving he's still working on Monsanto's behalf, Miller penned a two-part article22,23 for Investor's Business Daily this past summer, in which he tries — quite unsuccessfully — to tie USRTK to the alleged Russian GMO disinformation campaign.
The fact that they're still turning to Miller is probably a sign of just how desperate Monsanto (now Bayer) has become. Other discovery documents obtained by USRTK included email correspondence revealing Monsanto has been quite desperate for a number of years already.
In an email dated February 26, 2015, Daniel Goldstein, senior science lead of medical sciences and outreach for Monsanto, tells Monsanto's food safety scientific affairs lead, John Vicini, Ph.D.:24
In this email, Goldstein admits two pearls: First, the list of supporters willing to do their dirty work is short — which is why we keep seeing the same names pop up in pro-GMO propaganda pieces — and ACSH is a most valuable front group for the biotech industry.
So, who else wants you to think that "the Russians did it"? Mark Lynas, a long-term shill for the GMO industry, just published: "Opinion: Russian Campaign to Spread Anti-Vaccine Myths Part of a Wider War on Science and Truth"25 on the Alliance for Science website.
As the other examples cited above, Lynas — normally a pro-GMO advocate — is now cross-linking GMOs and vaccines, closely mimicking the core message of Senapathy's article, which is that "Many anti-GMO groups and anti-vaxxers are closely linked."
Again, what we're seeing is a crossover or merging of the GMO and vaccine industries in terms of messaging and propaganda angles. Rather than fighting public doubt separately, the shills for these industries are now putting out a single joint message that anyone who doubts the science presented by either of them is an anti-science nut job.
The take-home message here is that these tactics are nothing but a PR ploy. Yes, they're trying to make you feel like an outsider, an outcast. They're trying to make you feel ashamed of your "ignorance," or worse, as if you've fallen for false propaganda propagated by evil Russians in an effort to divide and conquer.
But all you really need to do is look for the hallmarks of astroturfing, and you'll quickly see through their ruse. You are not wrong for questioning flawed and biased science. You are not ignorant for questioning whether vaccines and GMOs might be unsafe when there's a clear lack of evidence to support safety claims.
You are not a danger to the public for looking at the evidence and making your own decisions about whether or not you want your family to receive a particular vaccine or eat a certain food. Your inquiries and thought processes are only dangerous to the industries in question which, by the way, are willing to go to just about any lengths to hide the dangers of their products in order to maintain their profits. Stand your ground. It's solid.
By Dr. Mercola
Goats are being genetically engineered to become "pharm animals" that carry vaccines in their milk.
Current experiments being conducted by researchers from Texas A&M are geared toward producing an "edible" malaria vaccine, with the ultimate goal being that children drinking the milk will become vaccinated in the process.
While claiming that bioengineered animals could be "life-savers" for people in third-world countries, the researchers ignore the glaring issue that such biotechnology often produces unknown, and unintended, health consequences that prove tragic for individuals and the environment.
Transmogrifying farm animals into "pharm" animals to act as living and breathing pharmaceutical factories is not new.
In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first drug produced by livestock that had been bioengineered to express a human gene.
In that case, the protein was extracted from the milk of genetically engineered (GE) goats.
In the latest instance, researchers introduced DNA coding for the malaria parasite into the goat genome linked to milk production.
The DNA is supposed to "switch on" only in the mammary gland when the goat produces milk.
As we've seen in the past with genetically modified plants, genetically engineered vaccine-producing animals might enter the food supply unexpectedly -- exposing unintended recipients to the vaccine. Or the animals might escape and breed with others, passing these bioengineered genes on with unpredictable consequences. Even the technology itself is risky at best, because when animals are exposed to foreign DNA, literally anything can happen.
Take, for instance, milk from cows treated with a synthetic, genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH. rBGH milk differs from natural milk nutritionally, pharmacologically, immunologically, and hormonally, and along with causing health problems in the cows, it is linked to cancer in humans. What does ingesting the DNA from the malaria parasite in your milk cause? No one knows.
Malaria is caused by a parasite of the species Plasmodium, which is spread from person to person by infected mosquitoes. Every year, it results in about 1 million deaths, the majority of which are in third-world countries. We are certainly in need of a solution, and while it sounds good in theory that a child could be protected from malaria just by drinking a glass of milk, remember that vaccines often weaken and confuse children's immune systems, which ultimately increases their susceptibility to the very infectious diseases vaccines are designed to prevent.
The most vulnerable of the world's children are those in the poorest countries where death and disease is often a result of malnutrition, and where children are often battling some sort of infection 200 days out of the year. Vaccines can be devastating to these already immunosuppressed children, as well as to adults.
However, emerging vaccine markets like third-world countries will soon outgrow developed markets by hundreds of billions of dollars. Emerging markets are areas of the world that are beginning to show promise as a profitable venture for many products, including vaccines. And emerging markets – primarily in developing countries in Southeast and Central Asia, and Africa – have been on vaccine makers' radar for quite some time.
One reason that vaccine makers are interested in these parts of the world is that that's where most of the world's deaths from major infectious diseases occur. The only problem has been that, until recently, making vaccines for undeveloped countries with no money to pay for them, was not exactly a profitable goal for vaccine makers.
Concerned that developed countries would have little or no resources for addressing serious infectious diseases if vaccine makers continued their pull-out, the World Health Organization and the G8 – the top developed countries in the world – responded with a plan for inducing vaccine companies to stay in the business.
That plan was called Advance Market Commitments (AMCs). Under AMCs, developed countries make legal, binding agreements to purchase vaccines that are needed in low-income countries. The purchase guarantees a bottom line for the manufacturers. In return, the manufacturers promise to sell those vaccines at reduced prices in the countries where they are most needed.
Unfortunately, legally binding, advance market commitments to purchase vaccines that are mostly needed in third world countries could backfire on developed countries that don't need – or want – certain vaccines. Malaria is one of the top neglected diseases that world health leaders want to address with AMCs, so the GM vaccine-producing goat milk might already be on their radar.
The ability to resist diseases like malaria requires a strong immune system, and for that, you require good nutrition, clean drinking water, and sanitation. If we want to help people in other countries to lower their malaria rates, it would be wise to focus on these basics first. In order to eradicate infectious disease from a nation, you have to first address compromised immune systems. If you hit immune suppressed children with a potent, adjuvant-loaded vaccine, you're far more likely to create new disease, not eradicate it.
It's similar to the corporations seeking to plant genetically modified golden rice in the developing world to purportedly alleviate vitamin A deficiency. What people in the developing world need to receive ample dietary vitamin A are the basics like access to a diverse range of nutritious foods -- including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming -- the opposite of what will occur if golden rice is planted on a large scale. So in the end it appears the golden rice will do little to improve vitamin A levels in the poor -- and may actually make vitamin A deficiency worse.
The vaccine-producing GM goats are a double-edged sword because while no one knows for sure what consuming GM vaccine-containing milk will do to humans, there's very convincing evidence that genetically modified foods spell nothing but trouble for your health.
In one review of genetically modified organisms (GMO) -- an analysis of 19 animal studies -- it was revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the liver and kidneys faring the worst.
In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide. In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy!
So, exposing children in third world countries to these potential risks needs to be carefully considered before a malaria vaccine is distributed in GM milk especially when there are other innovative ways of fighting malaria available. In addition, Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM products of all kinds. Among them:
- Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
- Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
- The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
- Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties
- Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products
Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the US because while GM seeds are banned in several European countries, in the U.S., certain states are actually passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such legislation. Michigan's Senate Bill 7771, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove "any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds."
While legislation like this sounds like crazy nonsense to most people, such bills are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the US government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.
Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.
Many don't fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the US.
Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California's labeling requirements for carcinogens2:
"Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California."
This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:
"A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. "While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning," Garza-Giarlante said in an email."
Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same.
To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:
I've discussed why COVID-19 vaccines are in fact gene therapies and not vaccines in several previous articles, including "COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines," "COVID-19 'Vaccines' Are Gene Therapy" and "How COVID-19 'Vaccines' May Destroy the Lives of Millions."
However, despite being a recognized form of gene therapy since its inception, vaccine makers are now frantically trying to deny that this mRNA technology is gene therapy. One reason for this, suggested by David Martin, Ph.D.,1 might be because as long as they're considered "vaccines," they will be shielded from liability.
Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. Another reason might be because they fear people won't line up for experimental gene therapy. It has a very different connotation in people's minds (as it should).
A third possibility is that they know full well that you cannot, ethically, mandate gene therapy in the way you can mandate vaccines. Mandatory public health measure directives are typically based on the idea that it's acceptable for some individuals to be harmed as long as the measure benefits the collective.
Well, the COVID-19 "vaccines" are only designed to lessen symptoms of COVID-19. They do not prevent infection or spread, and since the vaccinated individual is the only one receiving a potential benefit, "the greater good" argument falls apart.
Who knows, there may be other factors at play that we've not realized as of yet, but whatever the reason, they really do not want you to think of these injections as gene therapy. They want you to accept them as any other conventional vaccine.
Try as they might, though, they cannot get rid of mRNA's gene therapy label. For starters, Moderna describes its product as "gene therapy technology" in its SEC filings. On page 70, they also provide the following specifics:2
"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism."
In other words, it's a form of gene therapy, but one that doesn't enter and permanently alter your actual DNA. Instead, the mRNA stays in the cellular fluid where ribosomes read the code and create the protein per the mRNA's coding.
The difference between vaccine mRNA and your natural mRNA is that your natural mRNA resides in the nucleus of the cell where your cellular DNA resides — it can be likened to a reverse photocopy of your DNA — and exits the nucleus when a protein needs to be made.
This is in stark contrast to mRNA from vaccines, which is synthetic and enters the cell from the outside and is not designed to enter the nucleus. Additionally, your own mRNA is rapidly degraded by enzymes, but the one from the vaccine is protected in a liposome that will protect it from degradation and keep on producing spike proteins. How long? No one knows because it has never been tested.
However, some doctors still worry that mRNA injections might be able to reverse-transcribe into your genes and alter your DNA on a permanent basis. One is Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist, who shared his concerns on a December 2020 episode of The Shepard Ambellas Show.3,4
He claimed the mRNA of retroviruses (which are part of our genome) have been shown to have the ability to transcribe into your DNA, and if it can do that, vaccine mRNA might be able to do this as well. According to Urso, if this turns out to be correct, the result of mRNA vaccination might be lifelong COVID-19.
Another skeptic is Dr. Doug Corrigan, who in a March 16, 2021, blog reviewed the findings of recent research5,6 showing SARS-CoV-2 RNA can reverse-transcribe into the human genome:7
"In my previous blog, 'Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA?'8 I laid out several molecular pathways that would potentially enable the RNA in an mRNA vaccine to be copied and permanently integrated into your DNA.
I was absolutely not surprised to find that the majority of people claimed that this prospect was impossible … After all, we've been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because 'RNA doesn't work that way.'
Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, 'RNA does work that way'… Specifically, a new study9,10 by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA.
This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome.
They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.
And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized …
To be fair, this study didn't show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps."
A January 2020 Phys.org article,11 "Modified RNA Has a Direct Effect on DNA," also notes that "it has now been revealed that RNA has a direct effect on DNA stability," and this too may or may not play a role in mRNA therapy for COVID-19.
Getting back to Moderna's SEC filing, in it, they also admit that public perception of other types of gene therapy may negatively impact perception of mRNA medicines. The problem, they admit, is that irreversible gene therapies have side effects, and knowing this, people might shun mRNA medicines too. The SEC filing goes on to note:12
"Because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products."
Well, the pandemic allowed them to sneak mRNA gene therapy under the proverbial radar so that they don't have to conduct more stringent gene therapy safety testing. Instead, they were handed the global population for the largest testing imaginable, and all without liability when something goes wrong — provided it's viewed as a "vaccine," that is.
The SEC filing13 for BioNTech (BioNTech's mRNA technology is used in the Pfizer vaccine) is equally clear, stating on page 21: "Although we expect to submit BLAs for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications."
So, in the U.S. and Europe, mRNA therapies, as a group, are classified as "gene therapy medicinal products." The crux here, again, appears to be the idea that mRNA therapy does not cause permanent DNA alterations. On page 35 of the BioNTech SEC filing, they further clarify the alleged difference between other, irreversible, gene therapies and mRNA gene therapy:
"There have been few approvals of gene therapy products in the United States and other jurisdictions, and there have been well-reported significant adverse events associated with their testing and use.
Gene therapy products have the effect of introducing new DNA and potentially irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell. In contrast, mRNA is highly unlikely to localize to the nucleus, integrate into cell DNA, or otherwise make any permanent changes to cell DNA.
Consequently, we expect that our product candidates will have a different potential side effect profile from gene therapies because they lack risks associated with altering cell DNA irreversibly."
Company executives and scientists familiar with mRNA technology have, for years, been referring to this new technology as gene therapy. The video above features a TED Talk by Dr. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, given in 2017, more than two full years before COVID-19.
In it, he points out that they were, at that time, already working on a variety of vaccines, including an mRNA vaccine for influenza and individualized cancer vaccines based on the genetic sequence of the patient's tumor, stressing that this vaccine would not act like any previous vaccine ever created.
"We've been living this phenomenal digital scientific revolution, and I'm here today to tell you that we are actually hacking the software of life, and that it's changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease," Zaks said.
"In every cell there's this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we're all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will actually do. So, we think of it as an operating system ...
So, if you could change that … if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer …
Imagine if instead of giving [the patient] the protein of a virus, we gave them the instructions on how to make the protein, how the body can make its own vaccine," he said.
Zaks further differentiates conventional vaccines and mRNA vaccines by explaining that when using a conventional vaccine, you have viral protein floating around outside the cell, whereas the mRNA approach reprograms the cell to create that viral protein inside of itself.
"What's more alarming?" he asks. "A stranger prowling the neighborhood, or somebody who just broke into your ground floor and tripped the alarm? That's what happens with an mRNA vaccine. You've tripped the alarm wire and now the cell is dialing 911, it's calling the police — at the same time that it's making the protein, saying 'That's the bad guy.' That's how an mRNA vaccine works."
Zaks also refers to the company's mRNA shots as "information therapy," which is just another way of saying gene therapy because mRNA is a carrier of genetic code. (For clarification, code in your natural mRNA matches your DNA, whereas vaccine mRNA has no equivalence inside your genome since it's coming from the outside. Vaccine mRNA still carries "genetic code," though, just not anything found in your body before.) As explained on genome.gov:14
"Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. The mRNA is an RNA version of the gene that leaves the cell nucleus and moves to the cytoplasm where proteins are made.
During protein synthesis, an organelle called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and uses the genetic code to translate each three-base triplet, or codon, into its corresponding amino acid.
mRNA, are one of the types of RNA that are found in the cell. This particular one, like most RNAs, are made in the nucleus and then exported to the cytoplasm where the translation machinery, the machinery that actually makes proteins, binds to these mRNA molecules and reads the code on the mRNA to make a specific protein.
So in general, one gene, the DNA for one gene, can be transcribed into an mRNA molecule that will end up making one specific protein."
In true technocratic, transhumanist Fourth Industrial Revolution fashion, Zaks and other mRNA pushers view the body as your hardware, your genetic code as software and these mRNA injections as software updates. As noted by Patrick Wood in a recent Technocracy News article:15
"Pure and simple, this is unvarnished, raw transhumanism … Scientists think they can rewrite the genetic code [his words, not mine, for all you out there who still don't believe these mRNA vaccines change the genetic code just because some 'fact checker' says they don't], believing they can improve on a person's God-given genetic makeup is entering dangerous territory …
These scientists truly believe that the human body is nothing more than a machine that can be hacked into and reordered according to some programmer's instructions … Who's to say they won't correct one problem and create something far worse?"
What exactly is transhumanism? Technocracy News describes16 it as "a twisted philosophy that believes in the use of high technology to transform humans into immortal beings … Furthermore, they seek to use genetic engineering to create a new master race of sorts, that will shed all of the 'unseemly' characteristics of humans." Britannica defines17 it as a:
"… social and philosophical movement devoted to promoting the research and development of robust human-enhancement technologies. Such technologies would augment or increase human sensory reception, emotive ability, or cognitive capacity as well as radically improve human health and extend human life spans.
Such modifications resulting from the addition of biological or physical technologies would be more or less permanent and integrated into the human body."
Miklos Lukacs de Pereny, research professor of science and technology policy at the Peruvian University San Martin de Porres, has given presentations18 and interviews19 in which he warns that transhumanism is part and parcel of the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution agendas, which are being rolled out at a furious pace under the auspices of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported by Life Site News, November 10, 2020:20
"The COVID-19 pandemic was manufactured by the world's elites as part of a plan to globally advance 'transhumanism' — literally, the fusion of human beings with technology in an attempt to alter human nature itself and create a superhuman being and an 'earthly paradise,' according to a Peruvian academic and expert in technology.
This dystopian nightmare scenario is no longer the stuff of science fiction, but an integral part of the proposed post-pandemic 'Great Reset,' Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny said at a recent summit on COVID-19.
Indeed, to the extent that implementing the transhumanist agenda is possible, it requires the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a global elite and the dependence of people on the state, said Lukacs.
That's precisely the aim of the Great Reset, promoted by German economist Klaus Schwab, CEO and founder of World Economic Forum, along with billionaire 'philanthropists' George Soros and Bill Gates and other owners, managers, and shareholders of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Finance who meet at the WEF retreats at Davos, Switzerland, contended Lukacs.
Transhumanists … seek to 'relativize the human being' and 'turn it into a putty that can be modified or molded to our taste and our desire and by rejecting those limits nature or God have placed on us' …
Indeed, WEF's Schwab has been promoting the Great Reset as a way to 'harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution' … which, he declared in January 2016, 'will affect the very essence of our human experience.' Schwab described the Fourth Industrial Revolution then as 'a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines among the physical, digital and biological spheres' …
Those technologies include genetic engineering such as CRISPR genetic editing, artificial intelligence (A.I.), robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, and quantum computing. 'The Fourth Industrial Revolution is nothing other than the implementation of transhumanism on a global level,' emphasized Lukacs."
In "COVID-19 'Vaccines' Are Gene Therapy" (hyperlinked above), I provide even more background information showing that mRNA "vaccines" are in fact gene therapy, and how this technology has been viewed and presented as gene therapy in the past.
The fact is, everywhere you look, mRNA technology, mRNA therapy and mRNA medicines — anything mRNA — have been, for years, treated as a form of gene therapy. Take the 2015 paper21 "mRNA: Fulfilling the Promise of Gene Therapy" in the journal Molecular Therapy. In this paper, the authors point out that in vitro-transcribed mRNA has the potential to play a role in gene therapy previously only envisioned for DNA.
Back in 2009, the paper22 "Current Prospects for mRNA Gene Delivery" in the European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics noted that while "replication-deficient viruses have been used most successfully in the field of gene therapy … mRNA has … emerged as an attractive and promising alternative in the nonviral gene delivery field," and a 2019 paper23 in Frontiers in Oncology discussed the therapeutic prospects of "mRNA-based gene therapy for glioblastoma."
If they want to call it "temporary gene therapy," I'm OK with that — provided they can prove that it is in fact temporary, how long the effects last, and that vaccine mRNA cannot reverse-transcribe into the human genome like SARS-CoV-2 RNA apparently can.
But to deny that it's gene therapy altogether and insist that it's simply an updated form of vaccine technology is simply impossible, as it does not perform any of the functions of an actual vaccine (i.e., prevent infection and spread).
Now, if our genetic makeup is to be viewed as "the software of life," as Zaks puts it, then should we not have the sole authority to decide for ourselves whether we actually want a "software update," be it temporary or permanent?
"If we truly live in a free society, wouldn't it stand to reason that we would want to have an energetic debate over how to answer that question?" Wood asks.24
"Contrary to what some scientists believe, we are not machines. We are human beings with bodies, souls and free wills. Anyone who tries to mandate the acceptance of an experimental gene-altering treatment is going against the international Nuremberg Codes, which require informed consent of any experimental treatment."
If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you'd use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of "Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce."
Last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children's Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:25
The phrase “better living through chemistry” is a variation on an advertising campaign used by the DuPont Chemical Company1 in the mid-1930s until the early 1980s.
In 2014,2 it became the title of a “comedy” that portrays the life of a man bullied by his father and wife, and his subsequent “rebirth” through chemical use. However, the Hollywood and public relations versions of “better living through chemistry” are not the reality.
For instance, recent data from the University of California San Francisco revealed that 55 chemicals previously not found in humans were found in the bodies of pregnant women and their babies.3
Chemical-laden plastic has become such a ubiquitous part of modern-day life that is hard to imagine a world without it. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, it's a relatively new invention4 and there's still a lot we don't know about how it impacts human and environmental health.
The chemicals in plastic are intergenerational endocrine disruptors5 for which there is not enough evidence to demonstrate plastic is safe for current and future generations. These chemicals have widespread use in plastic products and are similar in nature to natural sex hormones, which earns them the designation of endocrine disruptors.
But the chemicals in plastics are just one of the enormous number of chemicals being released into the environment through human use and disposal in waste products, including human waste. For example, according to the Environmental Working Group,6 every day women in America use an average of 12 personal care products, including cosmetics, that contain up to 168 different chemicals.
And those are just the chemicals the manufacturers have told the public is in those products. Many of these are applied to the skin, which allows ingredients to be absorbed directly into the bloodstream. This is only one of the ways chemicals are absorbed in the body.
For example, food can introduce chemicals in the body, either through its ingredients or through its packaging. The fast-food industry was valued at $647.7 billion in 2019 and is estimated to grow 4.6% by 2027, reaching $931.7 billion.7 Yet, despite the fact that it has been identified as a significant source of hormone-disrupting chemicals, the market continues to grow as consumer demand increases.
In the featured study, researchers8 found 109 chemicals using high-resolution mass spectrometry on blood samples from pregnant women and their babies. The study was done to develop a screening workflow for the identification and prioritization of chemical exposure in maternal and cord blood samples as a development for the future evaluation of health risks.
In a small sample of 30 women and their babies’ cord serum samples, they discovered 55 previously unreported chemicals in human blood. In addition to this, they also found 42 “mystery chemicals” with sources and uses that were unidentified by the researchers.9 The scientists wrote that the majority of the 55 compounds had “limited to no information about their sources or uses.”10
However, the source of the chemicals is believed to be from consumer products and other industrial sources, as written in a press release from the University of California.11 Since they were found in both the pregnant woman and their newborn children, evidence suggests the chemicals are able to pass across the placenta.
Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., is a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California San Francisco and senior researcher on the study. She commented in the press release:12
“These chemicals have probably been in people for quite some time, but our technology is now helping us to identify more of them. It is alarming that we keep seeing certain chemicals travel from pregnant women to their children, which means these chemicals can be with us for generations. It’s very concerning that we are unable to identify the uses or sources of so many of these chemicals.”
Woodruff spoke to a journalist from Live Science,13 expressing her concerns that exposure during pregnancy is dangerous since it's at a vulnerable time of development, potentially leading to lifelong consequences. Two of the newly detected chemicals in the human body were polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFASs), used in products such as pizza boxes and nonstick cookware.
Ten were plasticizers, such as phthalates, but the majority of the newly detected chemicals the researchers had no information about. Another author, Dimitri Abrahamsson, told Live Science that the number of chemicals discovered should signal a sense of “alarm,” continuing:14
"We're being exposed to chemicals that we have very little information about. And these chemicals could potentially have harmful health effects that we don't know and can't predict.”
Data from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health discovered 90% of the people tested from 2016 to 2017 had eight different plasticizers in their urine.15 These colorless, odorless chemicals, composed mostly of phthalates, are used to change the elasticity of materials during the manufacturing process.16
Although you can probably name shower curtains, takeout containers and storage bags as plastic products, did you know clothing, paper coffee cups, tea bags and chewing gum are also made with plastic?17 Because the chemicals are not tightly bound to the products, they can dissipate into the surrounding environment, including the food you eat and the water you drink.
While the National Toxicology Program18 believes phthalates are “reasonably considered to be a human carcinogen,” politics and regulations have allowed plastics to remain in many of the products you use today.
In addition to the passage of chemicals from mother to child, ingestion of plastic particles can start in infancy. Globally, the baby bottle industry was valued at $2.6 billion in 2018, and the plastic segment accounted for 44.1% of the overall share.19 Researchers20 found that microplastics are released from plastic baby bottles into the contents, sometimes up to 16 million plastic particles per liter.
In this study, researchers tested only the number of particles released by the bottle as they use purified water and not standard drinking water. Since standard drinking water also contains microplastics,21 this means the number may have been significantly underestimated when the bottles are used at home.
Phthalates are powerful hormone disruptors that can cause males in many species to develop feminine characteristics.22 By disrupting the endocrine system they can also increase the risk of testicular cancer, low sperm count and infertility, which researchers have found in animal species including whales, deer, otters and bears.
A peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Public Health23 used data from longitudinal birth cohort studies to show associations between exposure to phthalates in utero and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, lower IQ, impaired social communication, poor psychomotor development and adverse cognitive development.
Woodruff and her team were able to tentatively identify some of the chemicals used in chemical libraries. However, confirmation is made by comparing them to the pure chemicals known as “analytical standards,” provided by the manufacturer. Manufacturers do not always provide the samples. Woodruff continued her statement in the press release from the University of California, saying:24
“EPA must do a better job of requiring the chemical industry to standardize its reporting of chemical compounds and uses. And they need to use their authority to ensure that we have adequate information to evaluate potential health harms and remove chemicals from the market that pose a risk.”
During the UCSF study, researchers found chemical manufacturer Solvay halted access to a chemical standard for one of their perfluorooctanoic acid compounds they have used as a replacement for those that have been phased out. The researchers had been applying this chemical standard as a comparison, looking for the presence and toxicity of the replacement chemical.25
It may seem odd that a regulated industry would have the option of withdrawing its chemical composition, but as Sharyl Attkisson from Full Measure26 revealed in an investigative report, the industry is self-regulated. When the law was passed in 1938, it was missing a section that would have given the FDA the authority to impose sanctions.
Melanie Benesh of the Environmental Working Group told Attkisson that the FDA does not have jurisdiction to recall products or “to do a systematic look at their ingredients and what their long-term effects are.”
While the FDA has no teeth, the EPA is not using its regulatory prerogative in many cases. According to their website, the EPA “gathers health, safety and exposure data; requires necessary testing; and controls human and environmental exposures for numerous chemical substances and mixtures. EPA regulates the production and distribution of commercial and industrial chemicals ...”27
Yet, as I have covered in the past, the EPA has been sued for its mercury policy, allowing dental offices to continue to discharge nearly 5.1 tons of mercury each year into publicly owned water treatment plants, most of which are subsequently released into the environment.28
The EPA has also been accused of colluding with Monsanto, which you can read more about in “Evidence EPA Colluded With Monsanto to Dismiss Cancer Concerns Grows Stronger.” They have blocked warning labels about glyphosate, and they promote the use of sewage sludge, which they dubbed “biosolids.”
This sludge is spread as fertilizer on U.S. agricultural lands, golf courses, parklands and cemeteries. As described in “BioSludged,”29 biosolids can contain dioxins, pharmaceuticals, surfactants, hormones and heavy metals, as well as disease-causing pathogens.
The persistence of these toxins in the treated soil means they may be absorbed by food crops that end up on your plate. Yet, high-profile PR companies, some funded by the EPA, spin biosolids as environmentally friendly and a form of recycling.
According to the World Wildlife Federation,30 between 1930 and 2000, there was a 400-fold increase in the production of man-made chemicals across the world, rising from 1 million to 400 million tons each year. These man-made chemicals produce widespread environmental contamination during their manufacture, use and disposal.
Chemicals can travel vast distances through the air or water and have been found to contaminate nearly every environment and type of wildlife, including birds, alligators, polar bears and panthers. There has been a widespread decline of mink in the Great Lakes, otters in Canada and other species across North America and Western Europe.31
Experts believe it is the environmental contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins, which is supported by studies using laboratory mink. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is classified by the U.S. EPA as a cancer-causing agent. It has been found in the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea.
In 1979, it was tested on monkeys and they all died within weeks. Scientists have found caimans, an alligator species native to South America, with sex reversals caused by environmental contamination from bisphenol A. The chemical was also responsible for reproductive malformations in quail and chicken embryos.
It doesn't appear that the EPA or FDA has plans to take broad steps to warn the public about dangerous environmental chemicals now or in the near future. On the contrary, in some cases, they're working with the companies to remove warning labels that could have alerted consumers to their risks, such as the incident in California where the EPA stepped in to remove warning labels about glyphosate.32
Despite scientific evidence to the contrary,33,34,35 to date the EPA continues to insist that there is “No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”36 Governmental regulatory agencies do not appear willing to go against large manufacturers in order to protect the health of their citizens.
Instead, it's up to you to vote with your pocketbook and keep an eye on the products and services that you use. For example, one way to promote change in the cosmetic industry is to participate in tracking adverse events37 from any chemical or product you use.
Instead of buying the newest celebrity-endorsed personal care product or cosmetic, consider making your own bath and handwashing products without preservatives. Seek out safe products that are free of potentially dangerous chemicals by using the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Database.38
The easiest way to steer clear of glyphosate is to buy locally and organically grown food from a trusted source. For a list of ways to help reduce your exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, see “Why Your Hormones Have Been Hijacked.”
In 2000, everything about Bill Gates’ public persona changed. He morphed from a hardnosed and ruthless technology monopolizer into a soft, fuzzy and incredibly generous philanthropist when he and his wife launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.1
It was a public relations coup. May 18, 1998, the U.S. Justice Department, in collaboration with 20 state attorneys, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.2 At that time, the company was 23 years old and was ruling the personal computer market. The Seattle Times described the fallout from the antitrust lawsuit:3
“The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.”
How would the world be different today if the company had been split? Yale law professor George Priest described the antitrust lawsuit as “one of the most important antitrust cases of its generation.”4 In 2002, a court settlement placed restrictions on Microsoft to curb some of its practices for five years.
It was later extended twice and then expired May 12, 2011. The lawsuit had a dramatic effect on “the emergence of an entirely new field called IP (intellectual property) antitrust,” Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp told the Seattle Times.5
Later, large sums donated from the foundation made the news multiple times, including $9.5 million to GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines), a second $7.5 million to GAVI and $6.8 million to the World Health Organization in 2017.6
By June 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, the Gates Foundation’s donations totaled 45% of WHO’s funding from nongovernmental sources.7 Once mainstream media’s attention was no longer on Gates’ antitrust activities and focused on the philanthropist actions of the foundation, Gates publicly turned his attention to vaccinating the world, long before COVID-19.8
In a deep dive into the Gates Foundation’s charitable donations, The Nation found there were $250 million in grants to companies where the foundation held corporate stocks, including Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Medtronic. The money was directed at supporting projects “like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.”9
What Gates had discovered was an easy path to political power, allowing him to shape public policy without being elected to office. In other words, favorable headlines could be bought with charitable contributions.10 One event that Gates has personally supported and participated in was Event 201.11
Writing in The Defender, Robert Kennedy Jr. describes the exercise that Gates organized in October 2019. Many high-ranking men and women with governmental authority participated in Event 201, which coincidentally simulated a worldwide pandemic triggered by a novel coronavirus, just months before SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, changed the world.12
They included representatives from the World Economic Forum, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Johns Hopkins University Population Center, the World Bank, the Chinese government and vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson. During the event, the group developed strategies to control a pandemic, the population and the narrative surrounding the event.
At no time did they investigate using current therapeutic drugs and vitamins or communicating information about building immune systems. Instead, the aim was to develop and distribute patentable antiviral medications and a new wave of vaccines.
As Kennedy reports, Gates spoke to the BBC13 April 12, 2020, and claimed these types of simulations had not occurred, saying "Now here we are. You know we didn't simulate this; we didn't practice, so both the health policies and economic policies … we find ourselves in uncharted territories."
Yet, videos of the event are available14 and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a statement naming the Gates Foundation as a partner in sponsoring the pandemic simulation.15 It seems strange and alarming that a man with the responsibility of running the Gates Foundation and the powerful influence he has over global public policy decisions had forgotten an exercise he organized only six months before the interview.16 Or was it deception?
During the pandemic exercise, the global experts “modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic.”17 After questions arose about whether the exercise had “predicted the outbreak in China,” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a thinly supported statement, saying:18
“… the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic … Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we use for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.”
Kennedy characterizes the fourth simulation in Event 201, writing that “the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media.”19
The transcript of the fourth simulation shows that the participants discussed communication strategies using dissemination of information and censorship on social media.20,21 Communication strategist Hasti Taghi, who works for a major media company and leads strategic initiatives with the World Economic Forum,22 said:
“So, I think a couple of things we have to consider are even before this began, the anti-vaccine movement was very strong and this is something specifically through social media that has spread.
So, as we do the research to come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we're creating?”
The question the group undertook wasn’t how to communicate the truth about the vaccine development, manufacture and distribution, but rather how to “communicate the right information to ensure the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”
The issue of gaining public trust to take a vaccine was significant in this simulation, even though the U.S. population is well indoctrinated in the perceived value of annual flu shots and childhood vaccinations. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a list of 26 different types of vaccines currently in use in the U.S.
In addition to the long list of recommended childhood vaccinations, there are adult vaccines against shingles, tetanus and pneumococcal pneumonia that are routinely given. Why, then, did the global experts in communication and control believe communicating the “right information” would be necessary to “ensure the public trust”?
This was only one of the highly predictive conversations during Event 201 that played out in 2020 as the global COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. George Gao, director-general, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,23 predicted:24
“By and long, we have more cases in China and also death cases reported. And also, my staff told me that before there's misinformation and there's some belief. People believe, ‘This is a manmade ... some pharmaceutical company made the virus,’ so there's some violations of human ... That is because of this misinformation.”
Others agreed with the need for social media censorship as it may pertain to the spread of “disinformation” about the pandemic or vaccines and vaccine injury, without regard to the source. The idea was to remove any information that did not align with the government’s mandates and ideas. Kevin McAleese, who is a communications officer with a Gates-funded agricultural project, said:25
“To me, it is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation … If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice.”
During the ensuing conversation, Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security,26 replied, “In this case, do you think governments are at the point where they need to require social media companies to operate in a certain way?”27
At each step of the simulation, the global “experts” agreed that information censorship through media platforms would be necessary to control the flow of the “right information” in order for people to willingly follow the leader.
What is interesting about the transcript from Event 201 is that what was planned and shared was frighteningly close to what has happened since January 2020. It may have been a coincidence to predict one or two major public health decisions, but it appears that the group was either phenomenally prophetic or they shaped the decisions and events of 2020 from behind the scenes.
From the outside, the driving force behind economically devastating lockdowns, warp speed vaccine development and population control and surveillance strategies has been to “flatten the curve” and lower the death rate of SARS-CoV-2. Yet, as I and others have exposed, when these strategies are analyzed, it’s apparent there is more than what meets the eye.
In July 2020, Yale University28 announced a study of the trigger words and phrases that would have a higher likelihood of promoting an otherwise individualistic society to quietly follow mandates (not laws) to control behavior. The phrases tested were believed to be most successful at conveying feelings about health, helping others and fear.
The hope was to manipulate behavior in such a way that it lowered the governmental risk for riots and dissidence. The study was conducted by Yale University using 4,000 participants who were randomized to receive one of 12 different messages. After the message, they were then evaluated to “compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at three and six months of it becoming available.”29
The primary outcome of the study was to find the right combination of phrases and messaging that would increase the number of people who got the vaccine. The study began July 3, 2020, and the last participant underwent testing by July 8, 2020.30 To date, the results of the study have not been published.
The president of the U.S. announced in July 2020 that there would be an “overwhelming” vaccine campaign launched by November 2020.31 In December 2020, the National Institutes of Health released a COVID-19 vaccination communication recommending behavioral and social science actions that might address vaccine hesitancy and increase the number who take the vaccine, including:32
In other words, many of the messages that you’ve been seeing in the media and your doctor’s office have been designed to trigger emotions that would lead you to take the vaccine. These same pressure tactics are not routinely used in the media for some of the more common adult vaccinations including pneumococcal, tetanus, hepatitis or shingles vaccines.
As I've written before, what we lose as a society when we acquiesce to these mandates and controls will be exponentially harder to get back. One of the freedoms we give away is allowing our thoughts and beliefs to be censored on social media without fighting back.
It is essential to safeguard your constitutional rights and civil liberties against unlawful overreach, and yet many appear to be willing to give up easily. Although the government has a duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, this must be balanced against the loss of civil rights and liberties.
We’re currently facing a battle of freedom versus tyranny. For example, multiple studies have demonstrated that long-term lockdowns are clearly not in the public's best interest.33,34 Instead, it's tantamount to abuse. And yet many have gone along with these mandates, which were not laws.
It's vital to understand that the vast majority of information you consume in mainstream media is carefully designed propaganda that has been crafted from nearly two decades of personal data collected from you.
Although Yale University undertook a study with 4,000 participants for a COVID-19 messaging campaign, that data had been gathered and collated through your use of social media.
As I have carefully identified in many previous articles, this plan will result in a progressive loss of your freedom and liberty that eventually results in tyranny and slavery. It is crucial to be vigilant and seek the truth so that you can understand how to distinguish between fact and a fictional narrative that promises you liberation but eventually enslaves you.
My newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” will be available April 29, 2021, on Amazon. In it, I investigate the origins of the virus and how the elite has used it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. In addition, I'll also show you how to protect yourself against the disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.
>>>>> Click Here <<<<<
The book goes into detail about pandemic profiteers. While I'm not thrilled about associating with Amazon, by pushing the book ranking up on their platform — one of the biggest tech companies who are benefiting from this global pandemic — we are actually using it to get the word out about them.
