https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png gypsey wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
the photo of little children circa 1918 who are about to be among the more than 500,000 americans who died because they thought gargling would help them is indeed telling. People, there are no miracles here and to disseminate falsehoods is beyond irresponsible. We've progressed however in the last 100 years and updates are available from WHO, the CDC and other credible sites.
"...the CDC and other credible sites."
Just Who & What is the CDC? Wikipedia, Barry's favorite institutional go-to fact-check site has this to say about the CDC:
The Communicable Disease Center was founded July 1, 1946, as the successor to the World War IIMalaria Control in War Areas program[5] of the Office of National Defense Malaria Control Activities.[6]
Preceding its founding, organizations with global influence in malaria control were the Malaria Commission of the League of Nations and the Rockefeller Foundation.[7] The Rockefeller Foundation greatly supported malaria control,[7]sought to have the governments take over some of its efforts, andcollaboratedwiththeagency.[8]
The new agency was a branch of the U.S. Public Health Service and Atlanta was chosen as the location because malaria was endemic in the Southern United States.[9] The agency changed names (see infobox on top) before adopting the name Communicable Disease Center in 1946. Offices were located on the sixth floor of the Volunteer Building on Peachtree Street.
With a budget at the time of about $1 million, 59 percent of its personnel were engaged in mosquito abatement and habitat control with the objective of control and eradication of malaria in the United States[10] (see National Malaria Eradication Program).
Among its 369 employees, the main jobs at CDC were originally entomology and engineering. In CDC's initial years, more than six and a half million homes were sprayed, mostly with DDT. In 1946, there were only seven medical officers on duty and an early organization chart was drawn, somewhat fancifully, in the shape of a mosquito. Under Joseph Walter Mountin, the CDC continued to advocate for public health issues and pushed to extend its responsibilities to many other communicable diseases.[11]
In 1947, the CDC made a token payment of $10 to Emory University for 15 acres (61,000 m2) of land on Clifton Road in DeKalb County, still the home of CDC headquarters as of 2019. CDC employees collected the money to make the purchase. The benefactor behind the "gift" was Robert W. Woodruff, chairman of the board of The Coca-Cola Company. Woodruff had a long-time interest in malaria control, which had been a problem in areas where he went hunting. The same year, the PHS transferred its San Francisco based plague laboratory into the CDC as the Epidemiology Division, and a new Veterinary Diseases Division was established.[5] An Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) was established in 1951, originally due to biological warfare concerns arising from the Korean War; it evolved into two-year postgraduate training program in epidemiology, and a prototype for Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETP), now[when?] found in numerous countries, reflecting CDC's influence in promoting this model internationally.[12]
[ emphasis mine ]
Others, perhaps a little less charitable about
the CDC, have this to say about the Entity:
A little bit of the Back-story of how John D. Rockefeller
Co-opted the Medical Profession & Established the
"Medical-Industrial Complex" in Amerika in the
Twentieth Century...
Question: "Why have the A.M.A. , the C.D.C. and the F.D.A. systematically discredited, dismissed & rejected "Electro-therapy" for almost eighty (80) years?
Answer: For the simple Reason that the American Medical Association & the Center for Disease Control are a Gigantic for-profit Trust having interlocking directorates with the Drug Cartels and the so-called "Food & Drug Administration." Electro-therapy is inexpensive & it works. Hence, it is unprofitable.
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png gypsey wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
the photo of little children circa 1918 who are about to be among the more than 500,000 americans who died because they thought gargling would help them is indeed telling. People, there are no miracles here and to disseminate falsehoods is beyond irresponsible. We've progressed however in the last 100 years and updates are available from WHO, the CDC and other credible sites."
So WHO & What is the "WHO" - The "World Health Organization"?
The following comes up on the Brave browser when one spins the following words through the DuckDuckGo Search engine :
British Medical Journal : WHO swine flu advisers had drug company ties By Tiffany O'Callaghan June 04, 2010
Almost exactly one year ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that the swine flu outbreak had reached global pandemic proportions. The announcement, made on June 11, 2009, spurred governments to order huge stocks of vaccines and prompted broad public health initiatives around the globe. And while we can all be grateful that swine flu didn’t claim as many lives as once feared, a new joint investigation conducted by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, points out that many of the top advisers to the WHO had ties to pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the highly-demanded vaccines — huge stockpiles of which now sit unused — and raises questions about global public health protocol in the face of future pandemics.
As the investigation points out, three of the scientists advising the WHO had ties to Roche, who make oseltamivir, or GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of zanamivir. Yet while these affiliations had been openly declared in previous academic work, Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, co-authors of the investigation, point out that no such affiliations were publicly presented by the WHO.
The investigation points to several inconsistencies with regard to the WHO’s policy on transparency, including the fact that the international body has not released the identities of 16 members of an Emergency Committee formed last year expressly to tackle swine flu. As Cohen and Carter write:
“The identities of its 16 members are unknown outside WHO. This secret committee has guided WHO pandemic policy since then—including deciding when to judge that the pandemic is over… WHO says it has to keep the identities secret to protect the scientists from being influenced or targeted by industry. In a phone call to the BMJ/The Bureau in March, WHO spokesperson Gregory Hartl explained: ‘Our general principle is we want to protect the committee from outside influences.'”
WHO officials have dismissed criticism of adviser affiliations as “conspiracy theories” and expressed some incredulity regarding the intense level of scrutiny that has arisen in the absence of a more devastating pandemic. As the investigation points out, addressing the U.S. Centers for Disease Control earlier this year, Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the WHO, said:
“WHO anticipated close scrutiny of its decisions, but we did not anticipate that we would be accused, by some European politicians, of having declared a fake pandemic on the advice of experts with ties to the pharmaceutical industry and something personal to gain from increased industry profits.”
In an editorial accompanying the investigative report, Fiona Godlee, the BMJ’s editor in chief, suggests that the WHO’s credibility has been “badly damaged” and says that forthcoming reports from European Commission, the European Parliament, and other national organizations will expand the scrutiny to other public health bodies that governed policy for the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. She also calls for the WHO to be prompt in publishing its own report, disclosing all affiliations and pledging to enforce more strict policies with regard to conflict of interest going forward.
Godlee sums up the editorial this way:
“In a briefing at the end of last year, a spokesperson for WHO said, ‘Given the discrepancy between what was expected [from the pandemic] and what has happened, a search for ulterior motives on the part of WHO and its scientific advisers is understandable, though without justification.’ The implication is that, had there been a huge death toll, the process behind WHO’s decision making would not have been subject to such scrutiny. This is almost certainly true. But it does not mean that we are wrong to ask hard questions. Neither does it make the answers we have found any less troubling. And nor does it remove from WHO the urgent need to restore its credibility and public trust before the next pandemic comes along.”
Why The World Health Organization Treats Bill Gates Like A President
Bill Gates and George Soros are pulling on the strings of WHO
The WHO (World Health Organization) deals with the health of the world. A noble goal, but the organization has been struggling for decades with the lack of money. The biggest criticism of the WHO is that instead of helping mankind, it supports the economy.
The WHO is the highest authority on health in the world. It should be an independent organization, but for a very large part, it is financed by one person: Bill Gates.
The 'Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation' has donated more than $ 2 billion to the WHO since the '90s. Gates' hobbyhorse is to eliminate the polio virus. He wants to achieve that by vaccinating as many children around the world against polio. He proclaimed the year 2010 as the start of: 'The Decade of Vaccinations.' But we call this decade the beginning of the end for those who receive mostly contaminated or genetic engineered vaccines.
But Bill Gates is a businessman and knows that the “global vaccine market” is undergoing rapid growth, which, according to the WHO, will be translated into a turnover of no less than 100 billion dollars a year by 2025 if all goes well.
if you spent 1/10th the time trying to actually do good and provide real information rather then searching the fringes of the internet for conspiracy theories....
04-12-2020, 10:14 PM
Mayacaman
Re: Coronavirus: Can we trust the WHO & the CDC ?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:
if you spent 1/10th the time trying to actually do good and provide real information rather then searching the fringes of the internet for conspiracy theories....
David Green, aka "SonomaPatientsCoop" You know nothing about me. Who are you to presume anything about how I spend my time? For your information, before the Sweep on the Joe Rodota Trail, I brought tons -literally, tons- of food from the back of the Redwood Gospel Mission to the homeless, in my truck. I did this back when the camp was behind the Dollar Tree on Sebastopol Road, and I continued to do this for weeks after the Joe Rodota Trail was "swept."
Unfortunately, the coronavirus contamination factor tends to make that source of food unviable to transport and to deliver to anyone at this point in time. At the present I am in self-quarantine.
As far as my "...searching the fringes of the internet for conspiracy theories..." you know, I have to say that I think you are really shallow. I do "research"-ever hear of that? It is in my blood. My grandfather, Walter W. Liggett was a well-known journalist; "famous long ago" as Dylan said, of someone else.
In 1931, he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. When the Senate Sub-committee on Capital Hill began to look into how the Volstead Act wasn't working, Walter Liggett was the first person that they called to testify, because he - as an investigative Journalist - knew the most about the Subject.
For well over a year he had gone barnstorming -as a muckraker- around the whole country, in an old black Buick, pulling a little tear-drop trailer. He brought his wife and family - including my seven year-old uncle & my five year-old mother - along with him. In the course of that time, he produced roughly sixteen articles (if my memory serves me well) in "Plain Talk" magazine on the Subject of the civic corruption that was being engendered by Prohibition.
Back in those days, nobody called muckraking peddling"conspiracy theories." I don't call it that. I call it "good old-fashioned muckraking." -And- I am not boasting when I say that I have it in my genes.
It works to protect public health and safety by
providing information to enhance health decisions,
and it promotes health through partnerships with
state health departments and other organizations.
Now, Just Chant it - and swallow the cool-aid
like good little muttons - like good little sheeple
04-28-2020, 12:23 AM
Mayacaman
Re: Coronavirus: Can we trust the WHO & the CDC ?
...Give us this day our daily bread...
In the course of doing my daily bit of research during our current novel coronavirus / covid-19 crisis, I came upon (stumbled upon would be more accurate) the existence of a documentary film, "Trust WHO ?" which was made by the group, "Oval Media"
I had been digging deeper into the pile of critical information regarding the CDC & the WHO, and after running the Question at the top of this thread : "Can we trust the WHO & the CDC ?" into the DuckDuckGo Search engine ("we don't track you") this film came up in the pile.
Not so surprisingly, in the current climate of suppression of information, in alignment with the "Event 201" forum Directives [review footage from 47:00 through 58:00] this film, "Trust WHO?" - which for the last three years was up on-line, free for all to watch & download on youtube & vimeo, has now been suppressed - since April 1, 2020.
This article, translated from French, was written prior to Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic outbreak***The WHO [OMS in French] is the World Health Organisation. ‘WHO’ in English – and that’s much more appropriate. WHO: who is it really?
Would the world be getting along any better without this outfit, which is in theory such a good idea? Would we be in better health?
The question is as serious as it is relevant.
Though even one death is one too many, compared with the alarmist forecasts from this professional organisation that were foisted on all the ministries of health the world over, one could say that the H1N1 viral pandemic, version 2009, has so far produced not much more than a mouse.
But what a fabulous show for the media!
What a brilliantly organized panic!
How many millions of euros spent, and best of all, what worrying rumours, about the health risks linked this time to the vaccination, which might not even work!
Thus arose a psychosis that might have stolen the headlines even from a much more palpable threat, much more deadly and with effects that have already been felt to the bone by a large part of the world’s population: the climatic effects of pollution and of the way of life engendered by the currently prevailing ideology, that of extreme and unfair capitalism, “deregulated” as it is called in the sober phraseology of its well-heeled master thieves.
Meanwhile the media, ignoring for a moment its celebrities and football matches, chose to focus the limelight – and thus the gaze of the spectator sheep – on the representatives, experts and spokespersons of this organization, the WHO. Until this year its existence may have been news to some people, but now its importance is plain to see.
We have been shown people with serious faces and a professional air, the sort to whom ordinary mortals tend to ascribe genuine competence and evident integrity.
Like other world organisations born from the ashes of the war of 1940-45 (the WTO, successor to GATT, the IMF, the UN, successor to the League of Nations), the WHO is a sort of transnational superministry, in this case for health.
Its power overrides that of its national equivalents. It is not subjected to genuinely democratic electoral procedures, in the sense of representing the choice expressed by the populations of its member countries. This is true of all these organisations that in fact control our daily lives in their respective fields. Its constitution came into force on 7 April 1948.
All these organisations are in a way like the arms, the tentacles of an enormous octopus whose purpose is to coordinate, improve and reinforce significant action on a planetary scale.
To clarify a crucial point: it would be misleading to think that these organisations undertake anything at all independently of each other. One could as well imagine that the liver can go on doing its own thing without being at all involved with the heart or the kidneys.
All of them work towards the same goals, each in their own specialist sphere, and all of them answer to the UN and to those who provide their funding.
The WHO has nothing to blame itself for
If you go to the official WHO site, you will of course get the impression that this organisation has a spotless record, and deserves to be praised for its humanitarian deeds.
It’s a bit like Monsanto, this multinational that dominates the market in agribusiness and wants to impose on the whole world its GM seeds complete with the Terminator gene (1), yet which tries to make you believe that the well-being and development of poor countries is its main concern.
Anyway, as in any court of law, it’s democratic, enlightened, modern, to give the “accused” party the chance to put its case.
As for the accusations of corruption and collusion with the pharmaceutical companies in the context of the worldwide vaccination campaign of 2009, it is Margaret Chan in person who has stepped up to the plate to defend the reputation of the WHO.
It’s important to realise that the accusations are weighty, well argued, and made by institutions that are well established, and pronounced by scientists and investigative journalists who are credible and trustworthy. It is difficult to dismiss all of them as a handful of conspiracy theorists, as regularly happens nowadays as soon as an interesting and well-argued debate is launched on a sensitive issue (the official version of the 9/11 attacks, the GIEC’s theory of global warming, Iran’s nuclear intentions, and so on).
It’s true that there is a certain logic in having a measure of collaboration between the WHO and the pharmaceutical companies that produce the medications.
However it is legitimate to ask questions about the exact part played by these firms in the decisions finally taken by the WHO, and on their real influence.
Commentary by a give-a-shit woman, who's been up all night on the internet, obsessed by COVID-19, and who is driven by the compulsion to tell the whole world what she has learned. Pardon the slow start while she struggles to compose her thoughts. Bear with her...
Many more questions are being raised than there are answers being discovered concerning the recent strains of coronavirus. Where and how did it originate? Was it the result of human engineering and manipulation or is it a strain that mutated naturally? What are the best tests to determine exposure and infection? Why are so many infected individuals asymptomatic? Are all elderly people equally susceptible to infection and how much do co-morbidities determine outcomes? These are just several of the important questions that still require definitive answers.
The ultimate international authority for infectious diseases is the World Health Organization (WHO). Because of its acceptance by the world’s national governments, it has been extremely successful in its mission. The WHO is the final word in determining whether the spread of a serious pathogen is ruled as a pandemic or not. For the majority of the medical community, the media and the average person, the WHO is the front line command post for medical prevention (i.e., vaccination) and treatment. Consequently it’s rulings are often regarded as the gold standard by which many nations design their health policies and intervening protocols to protect their citizens. On matters of global health, the WHO holds dominance.
We are currently being told by the Director General of the WHO that the solutions for curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic are self-isolation, distancing, masks, and, for those in acute stages of infection, ventilation. To date there is no drug that has been found to be universally safe and effective. Therefore, all efforts, with massive funding, are being devoted to rapidly get a coronavirus vaccine on the market. And in this effort, the WHO is a close ally and advocate in the US’s federal health system, notably the CDC and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Most people assume the WHO acts independently from private commercial and national government interests for the welfare of the world’s population. However, at best this is an assumption. Moreover, the very legitimacy of the WHO as a gold standard of health is questionable. The organization has been accused of conflicts of interests with private pharmaceutical companies and mega-philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as being riddled with political alliances, ideologies, and profiteering motives. An article in the National Review called the WHO “scandal plagued” with “wasteful spending, utter disregard for transparency, pervasive incompetence, and failure to adhere to even basic democratic standards.”
We would also add that its level of incompetence has resulted in serious misinformation about the medical risks of vaccines and other health-threatening chemicals. For example, during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, the organization reported it could not find any evidence of human transmission. Now we know it is perhaps the most transmittable respiratory viral infection encountered in modern medical history.Given the halls of power within the WHO, we are outlining some of the more salient reasons why the organization’s declarations about infectious diseases, pandemics and vaccination should not entirely be trusted.
Vaccine Promotional Misconduct
Very few will know that for a long time, the WHO’s recommendations for certain vaccines were kept secret.
Writing in a 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Marc Girard uncovered “scientific incompetence, misconduct or even criminal malfeasance” over the intentional inflation of vaccines’ benefits while undermining toxicity and adverse effects. Dr. Girard was called upon as a medical expert by the French courts in a criminal trial against the WHO after French health officials obliged the organization to launch its universal Hepatitis B vaccine campaign. The campaign resulted in the deaths of French children. Consequently, Girard gained access to confidential WHO documents. He notes that the WHO’s “French figures about chronic liver diseases were simply extrapolated from the U.S. reports.” He further accused the WHO serving “merely as a screen for commercial promotion, in particular via the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB), which was created, sponsored,and infiltrated by the manufacturers.”
Orchestration of Pandemic Panics
Before the current COVID-19 pandemic, there was the H1N1 swine flu scare in 2009 that came and went as a church mouse. However, at the very start the WHO’s fear mongering of a global contagion that could exceed the death counts of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic was based on false assumptions. The analysis was undertaken by the WHO’s senior consultant on viral outbreaks Dr. Albert Osterhaus who carries the nickname “Dr. Flu.” Osterhaus is head of the Department of Virology at Erasmus University in the Netherlands. At the time of the H1N1 pandemic, he was the president of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), an organization funded by the major vaccine manufacturers including Baxter, MedImmune, Glaxo, Sanofi Pasteur and others. It is ESWI’s agenda to vaccinate the entire world against the swine flu. It was also Osterhaus who transformed an otherwise potentially bad flu season into a global pandemic.
The WHO has been criticized harshly in the media for changing the definition of a “pandemic” and in doing so has been charged with benefitting the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, the British Medical Journal reported that the WHO failed to report conflicts of interest in its H1N1 advisory group. The journal’s Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee wrote, “WHO must act now to restore its credibility, and Europe should legislate.”According to a financial forecast published by JP Morgan, the collaboration between the WHO and Osterhaus’s ESWI to orchestrate the pandemic would have profited the pharmaceutical industry up to $10 billion. The popular German magazine Der Spiegel reported: “The WHO and those in charge of public health, the virologists and the pharmaceutical laboratories…. created a whole system around the imminence of a pandemic. There is a lot of money at stake, as well as networks of influence, careers and whole institutions! And the minute one of the flu viruses mutates we’d see the whole machine roll into action.”
Epidemic of Conflict of Interests
According to former World Bank geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig, about half of the WHO’s budget is derived from private sources — primarily pharmaceutical companies but also other corporate sectors including the telecommunication and agro-chemical industries. It also receives large donations from large philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is believed, according to Koenig, that the appointment of the WHO’s current Director General, Dr. Tedro Adhanom, was due to Gates’ influence. Tedros is the former Chairman of Gates funded GAVI Vaccine Alliance. GAVI’s sole mission is to vaccinate every child in the world. The WHO and the US and British governments are the primary partners and the largest funder is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.There is in our opinion little doubt that the WHO is another one of Gates’ bought off entities for furthering his personal agenda to promote vaccines, genetically modified seeds and chemical agriculture in the developing world. Barbara Loe Fisher at the National Vaccine Information Center estimates that“only about 10 percent of total funding provided by Gavi ($862M) was used to strengthen health systems in developing countries, such as improving sanitation and nutrition, while nearly 80 percent was used to purchase, deliver and promote vaccines.”
The WHO as America’s Poodle
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s fact sheet for the US government and WHO, the US is the largest contributor to the global organization. The CDC also provides its technical support and has liaisons at the WHO’s Geneva headquarters and regional offices. In summary, there is a strong rationale to suggest that the WHO, aside from its global health programs in other countries, is largely doing the bidding of the US government to advance corporate interests and American neoliberal hegemony.
Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement that they had worked with Facebook to curb vaccine “misinformation.” Therefore, it appears that an international organization is working with a social media company to usurp free speech and accountable democracy in America.
In the first Global Vaccination Summit in Brussels on Sept. 12, 2019, Jason Hirsch, Facebook’s public policy manager, said the company was taking its role in the area “very seriously”. “We want to take a two-part approach to improving the quality of information about vaccinations on our platform,” he said. “The first thing that we are doing is reducing the distribution of misinformation about vaccinations and the second thing that we are doing is increasing exposure to credible, authoritative content on vaccinations.” But, is it Facebook’s role to decide what information people get to read regarding vaccine safety?
Like Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Children’s Health Defense believes that the public is smart and can be given the facts and make up their own minds about what is true and what isn’t. We are completely confident that the vaccine facts and the science are on our side. We invite any and all to peruse our website and share any articles with friends that you think will help them make decisions.
“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.”
– Potter Stewart
Our guiding mission is to stop the chronic health epidemics affecting children today. We believe vaccines that over-stimulate the immune system are one of the leading causes of these epidemics. As the 2013 IOM Report concluded in their Summary, (bottom of page 5), that the entire Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Childhood Vaccine Schedule has never been studied for safety, we believe that, rather than trying to censor Children’s Health Defense viewership, we suggest WHO and CDC spend their money and time on real science and vaccine safety.
It is regrettable that instead of seriously addressing the issue and substantively addressing parents’ legitimate concerns, WHO and the CDC with the assistance of Facebook have chosen instead to try to silence critical and dissident voices rather than facilitating the exchange of ideas that is so necessary for humanity to progress.
Here are the major concerns:
There is corruption and conflicts of interest in the CDC, FDA, WHO and NIH whereby big pharma has influence and power over the interpretation of the outcomes/science and the related safety of vaccines. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has persistently urged HHS to perform such studies since 1991. HHS has assiduously refused. There is, therefore, no way to scientifically claim that a specific vaccine averts more harms, including deaths, than it causes.
The latest data and science show that specific vaccines are unequivocally not safe. Yet government officials – with well-documented conflicts of interest with the $50 billion vaccine industry – systematically obscure the risks while exaggerating the benefits of vaccines.
State initiatives mandating vaccines regardless of family pre-conditions and/or religious beliefs, if left unchecked, will mentally impair an even greater percentage of our child population resulting in one of the greatest human biological experiments in modern history.
The pharmaceutical industry enforces policy discipline through agency budgets. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations. And CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget. Further, Pharma directly funds, populates and controls dozens of CDC programs through the CDC foundation.
A British Medical Journal editorial excoriates CDC’s sweetheart relationship with pharma quotes UCLA Professor of Medicine Jerome R. Hoffman “most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry… It is outrageous that industry is apparently allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has potential to cut into profits.”
Collected from many sources, this page lists the conflicts of interest and financial entanglements of the WHO and the CDC that should be considered when determining the validity of statements made by either organization. This compilation doesn’t even include the twenty seven years of pharmaceutical industry criminal and civil penalties from 1991 through 2017 reported in a Public Citizen expose.
In a situation that parallels the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) close relationships with vaccine manufacturers while continuing to promote vaccines as “safe and effective”, CrossFit, Inc. has uncovered documentation confirming large contributions from Coca-Cola and Pepsi to the CDC Foundation that the agency has deliberately kept from the public. CrossFit notes that these companies have contributed to Type 2 diabetes, liver disease, opioid addiction, and other illnesses and that conflicts of interest such as this are “endemic” within both the CDC and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services.
A Congressional Government Reform Committee report criticized the FDA and the CDC for routinely allowing scientists with conflicts of interest to serve on two influential advisory committees that make recommendations on vaccine policy.
The 21st century organized crime lords—the pharmaceutical industry—have risen to unprecedented dominion over humanity. These renegade modern-day, too-big-to-fail outlaws have mastered and expanded the industry corruption playbook to levels that make the tobacco industry seem relatively tame and honest in comparison. Big Pharma has methodically choreographed a stealthy take-over of our most fundamental democratic institutions necessary to maintain industry in check: the regulatory institutions, the legislatures, politicians, free press/media, academia and objective science. Big Pharma today not only influences legislation for drugs, but the vaccine producers are also guaranteed a self-serving, automatically-captured consumer market in the form of 74 million children to whom the government mandates their limited-liability vaccine products in unprecedented numbers.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is responsible for issuing annual vaccine recommendations for the U.S. civilian population, however it’s industry-beholden membership roster reads like a “who’s who” of the individuals and organizations who spearhead the nation’s vaccine business. Longstanding conflicts of interest that hold ACIP members captive to pharmaceutical industry interests are well known and well documented.
In the early 2000s, a four-month investigation by United Press International (UPI) identified “a web of close ties”and financial entanglements between CDC’s ACIP members and vaccine companies, including: Sharing vaccine patents; Owning vaccine company stock; getting research funding or money to monitor vaccine testing; Receiving funding for academic departments or appointments.
Media outlets are announcing the abrupt resignation of Brenda Fitzgerald, the physician appointed in July, 2017 to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The resignation follows on the heels of reporting by Politico, which uncovered conflicts of interest including a personal financial stake in companies such as Merck and Bayer. This only illustrates, in microcosm, the CDC’s longstanding willingness to cozy up to Big Pharma and Big Health Care in defiance of ethics rules.
A letter sent by more than a dozen senior CDC scientists charging the agency with nursing an atmosphere of pervasive research fraud. The group, which claimed to represent scientists across the CDC’s diverse branches, calls itself SPIDER (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). The letter reveals that, for all intents and purposes, the CDC functions as a subsidiary of a rapacious pharma*ceutical industry in partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and numerous outside parties and rogue interests that all benefit from their endorsement of a highly profitable vaccine orthodoxy.
A 2009 report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services determined that CDC displayed a systemic lack of [ethics] oversight. Virtually all (97%) of the individuals sitting on CDC advisory committees, including Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), omitted relevant financial disclosure information from their required ethics form, and CDC rarely complied with the requirement to identify and resolve all conflicts of interest…before permitting [those individuals] to participate in committee meetings.
Every Child By Two (“ECBT”) puts on a front to the world that they are an independent, compassionate organization of parents dedicated to the important work of getting every child vaccinated. In fact, the organization is really a sock-puppet mouthpiece for two masters: 1) the Centers for Disease Control and, 2) vaccine makers, their two primary sources of funding.
The Hill newspaper covers the concerns of more than a dozen CDC informants about the inner workings of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that have been mounting in recent months amid disclosures of cozy corporate alliances. The group lodged an ethics complaint alleging the federal agency is being influenced by corporate and political interests in ways that shortchange taxpayers.
British Medical Journal. Some prominent vaccine advocacy organizations are pushing for greater compulsion. But are these groups—which present themselves as reliable sources of information—providing the public with independent information? With industry and CDC funding in hand, front groups such as Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) and Every Child by Two (ECBT) guarantee vaccine makers’ ability “to influence policy without having to stand on the front lines.”
Whereas the FDA was publicly funded prior to 1992, by fiscal year 2017, three-fourths (75%) of the FDA’s annual budget increase came from user fees, with the pharmaceu*tical industry in essence paying FDA regulators’ salaries.
According to a 2015 report in Fortune magazine, pharmaceutical companies are more than willing to pay “big bucks” to speed up the approval process, and in the process, they gain extraordinary leverage over regulatory decision-making.
In addition to the CDC’s own*ership of dozens of vaccine-related patents, the agency’s involvement with vaccine manufacturers also extends to licensing agreements and collaboration on projects to develop new vaccines.
The large number of patents held by the CDC deserves an in-depth review to determine exactly what current financial relationships with vaccine makers now exist and what…current impact those revenue streams are likely having on vaccine safety positions.
The manuscript of the Hearing before the Committee on Government Reform in the U.S. House of Representatives, concerning conflicts of interest and vaccine development.
This bombshell video footage, published by Del Bigtree’s The Highwire, captures a series of statements—profoundly unsettling in their matter-of-factness—made by professionals who, in early December, attended the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) two-day Global Vaccine Safety Summit. However, the crème de la crème of the vaccine establishment attendees admitted that vaccines can be fatal, the design of safety studies makes it difficult to spot problems, safety monitoring is inadequate, and vaccine adjuvants increase risk.
Regarding the DPT vaccine, highly regarded researcher Dr. Peter Aaby announced, “This vaccine is killing children,” at the Symposium About Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen on March 9, 2019.
In early 2019, the WHO hyperbolically declared “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate” to be one of ten major “global health threats.” What the WHO failed to mention is the preponderant role of commercial interests, especially those of drug companies, in shaping its goals and strategies.
In 2015, K. M. Gopakumar from Third World Network (TWN) investigated financial contributions by pharmaceutical companies to the WHO and found some to be in conflict with WHO’s guidelines for ethical promotion of medicines. As Gopakumar questions in closing, “These financial contributions thus raise doubts about the implementation of the Guidelines by the Secretariat. How can the WHO Secretariat be expected to scrutinise the conduct of the pharmaceutical companies concerned while accepting financial resources from them?”
Over 120 groups and individuals, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense, sent a letter to the WHO in 2018 chastising the organization for its advocacy of less vaccine testing in order to speed up production. The letter included a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to restore confidence in the WHO emphasizing vaccine safety testing and conducting studies on health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
Pharmaceutical industry influence makes itself felt not just domestically but also globally, and this has led to a corresponding amping-up of rhetoric against “anti-vaxxers” around the world. In early 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) hyperbolically declared “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate” to be one of ten major “global health threats.” What the WHO failed to mention, however, is the preponderant role of “commercial interests”—and especially pharmaceutical industry interests—in shaping its goals and strategies.
The Gates Foundation—established in 2000 with an initial endowment of $42.9 billion and amplified by an additional $30 billion from Warren Buffet in 2006—has become the world’s leading global health player as well as the largest non-state funder of the World Health Organization (WHO). As a result of the Gates Foundation’s “tremendous agenda-setting power,” the global health community designated 2010–2020 as the Decade of Vaccines; developed a Global Vaccine Action Plan; and created the public-private Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI Alliance), which receives almost one-fourth of its funding from the Gates Foundation.
In 2010, the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published findings of their investigation into the financial ties between drug companies and the WHO in the context of the 2009 influenza “pandemic”. The article revealed that some of the experts advising WHO had declarable financial ties with drug companies that were producing antivirals and influenza vaccines.
“With coronavirus infections soaring across the nation,” the lead paragraph says, “federal health officials on Friday urged Americans in the most forceful language yet to take steps to protect themselves—starting with consistent, proper use of masks—and pressed local governments to adopt 10 public health measures deemed necessary to contain the pandemic.”
The Times quotes the former CDC Director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, who served under President Barack Obama (while Joe Biden was Vice President), saying that the document shows that the CDC is awakening from its “politics-induced coma”. What it means, according to Frieden, is that public health officials at the CDC are “aligning themselves more with science, which also aligns them more with the Biden administration”.
Further into the article, after again emphasizing the CDC’s policy recommendation on mask use, the Times claims that “asymptomatic individuals . . . are responsible for about 50 percent of transmissions.”
The Times was parroting that claim from the CDC paper, which states that there is “approximately 50% of transmission from asymptomatic persons”.
We may stipulate that this statement does align the CDC more with the politics of President-elect Joe Biden. However, the public must be made to understand that the statement is false and aligns the CDC against the science.
Moreover, the CDCknows that the statement is false.
Additionally, the CDC must surely understand that false claims such as this will be uncritically parroted by mainstream media outlets like the New York Times in ways that serve to manufacture consent for the authoritarian lockdown measures that Biden favors, including business closures or restrictions and executive mask-wearing orders.
The false claim causes people to be irrationally fearful of other people since anyone could be among the “silent spreaders” who never develop symptoms of COVID-19 but who nevertheless efficiently transmit the novel coronavirus that causes it, SARS-CoV-2.
In truth, the scientific evidence indicates that asymptomatic transmission is rare. People who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 but never develop COVID-19 appear not to be a major contributing factor in the community spread of the coronavirus.
There are studies that estimate that individuals who are presymptomatic, meaning that they do go on to develop disease symptoms, are responsible for a large proportion of community spread. Contact tracing studies have documented cases of evident presymptomatic transmission, but we do not know the extent to which this explains community spread. The estimates reported matter-of-factly by the media come from modeling studies that have serious methodological flaws and limitations biasing results artifactually toward a higher proportion of presymptomatic spread.
The CDC also knows that when it produces false claims like this one about asymptomatic transmission, it is not going to be “fact checked” by the media’s self-proclaimed “fact checkers”.
Articles like this one from the New York Times that repeat such false claims are not going to get flagged on Facebook or other social media for spreading misinformation, and users who share the misinformation will not be penalized in social media algorithms or have their account suspended.
While there is certainly misinformation being spread on social media and by alternative online media, it is the government and mainstream media, including self-proclaimed “fact checker” sources, who are the greatest purveyors of lies and deceptions.
I challenge the “fact checkers” to prove me wrong by doing objective journalism for a change and either applying their own standards universally, rather than selectively “fact checking” only information that doesn’t align with certain political agendas, or by abandoning this whole “fact check” charade altogether.
Let’s now take a look at the claim, show why it’s a bald-faced lie, show why the CDC knows it’s false, and expose the incontrovertible hypocrisy of the faux “fact check” sources that engage in censorship of factual information while greatly contributing to the problem of a misinformed public.
The Facts:A documentary called "trustWHO" explores the influence that the pharmaceutical industry, among others, has on the World Health Organization. It was recently banned by Vimeo.
Reflect On:Why is sound and solid research presenting credible information being banned and censored on multiple platforms across the internet?
Special note to readers: This is the most comprehensive investigation into both sides of the vaccine debate. Researchers, medical professionals and scientists, come together to bring you the information you need to know in order to make educated decisions about vaccines. The global viewing event for The Truth About Vaccines begins April 22.
I recently published a piece about Wikileaks regarding recent posts they made pertaining to documents they released nearly a decade ago . The documents highlight the influence that pharmaceutical companies have on health policy set by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Towards the end of that article, I wrote about a documentary that’s recently been removed by Vimeo, and I wanted to publish another article that specifically shines light on this matter.
Vimeo deleted “trustWHO”, a film directed by Lilian Franck. Vimeo stated that they do not support “Videos that depict or encourage self-harm, falsely claim that mass tragedies are hoaxes, or perpetuate false or misleading claims about vaccine safety.”
According to the filmmakers, the claim from Vimeo is “Both misleading and false. “trustWHO” has been thoroughly researched for 7 years; it has been fact-checked and approved by lawyers, experts in the medical field and even by key executives of the WHO itself. The documentary simply investigated how efficiency and transparency of the WHO are undermined by both corporate influences and a lack of public funding. It is a journalistic investigation based on facts and far from what Vimeo makes it out to be. This is our full statement on the matter, presented by Robert Cibis (Filmmaker, Co-author and producer of “trust WHO”).
