Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘World Health Organization’

When There Wasn’t Enough Hand Sanitizer, Distilleries Stepped Up. Now They’re Facing $14,060 FDA Fees. –

Posted by M. C. on December 31, 2020

Government fans have something to celebrate tonight!

Is this the same FDA that approves drugs and vaccines?

Jacob Grier

For many American craft distillers, 2020 was already one of their worst years ever. The COVID-19-related closure of tasting rooms and cocktail bars, loss of tourism, and inability to offer in-store sampling slashed their sales revenue and cut them off from their customers. Then this week, just as it seemed they’d made it through the worst of a terrible year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had one more surprise in store: The agency delivered notice to distilleries that had produced hand sanitizer in the early days of the pandemic that they now owe an unexpected fee to the government of more than $14,000.

“I was in literal disbelief when I read it yesterday,” says Aaron Bergh, president and distiller at Calwise Spirits in Paso Robles, California. “I had to confirm with my attorney this morning that it’s true.” The surprise fee caught distillers completely off guard, throwing the already suffering industry into confusion.

When the onset of the pandemic led to a massive increase in demand for hand sanitizer this spring, many distilleries stepped up to alleviate the sudden shortage. The main ingredient in sanitizer is ethanol, which they are in the business of making, albeit typically in more fun and tasty formats. More than 800 distilleries pivoted from spirits to sanitizer, offering it for sale or in many cases donating it to their communities free of charge. Their prompt action helped ensure supplies of sanitizer when it was otherwise unobtainable.

(Even then, the FDA needlessly complicated things, imposing additional requirements on top of guidelines published by the World Health Organization for emergency production. The FDA’s mandate that all alcohol used in sanitizer first be denatured—rendering it undrinkable—created a bottleneck that raised costs for distillers and slowed production.)

Producing sanitizer is viewed as a point of pride in the distilling business, a way that they were able to help their communities in a fearful time of crisis. 

Now, however, that good deed is being punished with unanticipated fees by the FDA. “I compare it to surprise medical billing,” says Becky Harris, president of the American Craft Spirits Association (ACSA) and of Catoctin Creek Distilling in Purcellville, Virginia.

At issue is a provision of the CARES Act that reformed regulation of non-prescription drugs. Under the revised law, distilleries that produced sanitizer have been classified as “over-the-counter drug monograph facilities.” The CARES Act also enacted user fees on these facilities to fund the FDA’s regulatory activities. For small distillers, that means ending the year with a surprise bill for $14,060 due on February 11.

“People are incredibly anxious,” Harris says. “We have been dealing with tons of phone calls talking to individual members and state guilds to tell them what we know and what we don’t know.”

Harris and the ACSA have spent the day trying to learn more details about the law and the FDA’s intentions, but the combination of the holidays and the pandemic makes this a difficult time to reach anyone. “We recognize that this bill [the CARES ACT] was not written specifically for the issue of sanitizer,” Harris says. “The problem that we have right now is that [the fee assessment] is going out to a whole lot of small businesses who are struggling in the pandemic.”

Bergh’s CalWise Spirits is a typical example. He says that his distillery produced 5,000 gallons of hand sanitizer, with distribution prioritized to medical workers and others on the frontlines of the pandemic response. “Some of my hand sanitizer was donated,” he said in a statement today. “The rest was sold at a fraction of the market price. My goal was to get as much out as I could, at as low of a price as I could, while being able to bring my furloughed employees back to work. The hand sanitizer business saved me from bankruptcy—but I didn’t make an enormous profit.”

Potentially compounding the impact of the fee is that it is determined by registration as an OTC (over-the-counter) monograph drug production facility in the previous calendar year. That means that distilleries not only have to contend with this year’s fee; if they fail to update their status with the FDA by tomorrow, they may be liable for an additional fee in 2022 as well.

For now, Harris is advising members not to pay the fee right away. “We want to push back on this,” she says. She’s hopeful that if the FDA has some discretion as to the applicability of the fee, that they will exercise it to exclude distilleries, most of which no longer produce sanitizer and have no intention of continuing to do so now that the emergency shortage has passed. Currently, however, the FDA’s website explicitly notes that facilities that produced sanitizer under the agency’s temporary COVID-19 policy are not exempt. Reason‘s inquiry with the FDA has yet to receive a detailed response, but we will update if we receive one.

Paying a surprise $14,000 bill would be a challenge for small businesses in any year, but it’s a particular challenge for craft distilleries in 2020. An industry survey conducted earlier this year by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and the American Distilling Institute projected that sales revenue at craft distilleries would decline by more than $700 million this year, amounting to approximately 40 percent of their sales.

For many distillers, the unexpected fee assessment from the FDA thus arrives as one more substantial blow in an already devastating year. “If you were making sanitizer for your community at a limited capacity, this should not be something you have to deal with,” says Harris. “It will be a slap in the face to make it through all of this and then get hit with this bill.” 

Jacob Grier, a freelance writer, bartender, and consultant based in Portland, is the author of The Rediscovery of Tobacco (Kindle Direct) and Cocktails on Tap (Stewart, Tabori and Chang).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : No Vaccine for Tyranny

Posted by M. C. on November 3, 2020

Instead of admitting that the lockdowns were a mistake, many in the political class, which includes a disturbing number of medical professionals whose positions and prestige depend on government, claim that we cannot return to normalcy until a coronavirus vaccine is in wide use. This suggests that people among the majority of Americans who do not wish to be vaccinated will remain under lockdown or be forced to be vaccinated against their will.

Written by Ron Paul

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently admitted that lockdowns cause more harm than good. Following this announcement, one would have expected American politicians to immediately end the lockdowns. After all, the WHO ‘s pronouncements are considered infallible, so much so that social media sites silence anyone who dares challenge the great and powerful WHO. Yet, governors, mayors, and other government officials across the country are ignoring the WHO’s anti-lockdown position.

Instead of admitting that the lockdowns were a mistake, many in the political class, which includes a disturbing number of medical professionals whose positions and prestige depend on government, claim that we cannot return to normalcy until a coronavirus vaccine is in wide use. This suggests that people among the majority of Americans who do not wish to be vaccinated will remain under lockdown or be forced to be vaccinated against their will.

The assault on our liberty will not end with deployment and use of a vaccine. Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed, a “public-private partnership” in charge of producing and delivering a coronavirus vaccine, has said that those who receive a vaccine will be monitored by “incredibly precise … tracking systems.” Slaoui has also indicated that tech giants Google and Oracle will help the government keep tabs on the vaccinated individuals. So, the vaccine program will lead to an increase in government surveillance!

Slaoui is just the latest “expert” to endorse forcing the American people to relinquish their few remaining scraps of privacy to stop coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have urged development of a digital certificate for those vaccinated for coronavirus. People without the certificate would find their liberty severely restricted.

Those who think that the new surveillance system will be limited to coronavirus should remember that Social Security numbers were only supposed to be used to administer the Social Security program. They should also consider that the PATRIOT Act’s expansion of warrantless wiretapping was supposed to be limited to stopping terrorists. However, these powers have been used for a wide variety of purposes. Whenever government is given power to abuse our rights for one reason it will inevitably use that power to abuse our rights for other reasons as well.

Fauci and Gates’ digital certificate could, and likely will, be expanded to include proof individuals have received a variety of other vaccines and medical treatments. The digital certificate could even extend to monitoring a person’s lifestyle choices on the grounds that unhealthy habits make one more susceptible to diseases.

The digital certificate could also be tied to the REAL ID program to deny individuals who have not been vaccinated the right to travel. It could also be combined with a future mandatory E-Verify system to deny unvaccinated individuals the right to hold a job. Those who consider this “paranoia” should consider Britain is already developing a covid passport.

Liberty lost in the “war on covid” will not be voluntarily returned when the coronavirus threat ends — assuming the government ever stop moving the goal posts and declares the coronavirus threat is over. Instead, the people must be prepared to take back their liberty from the politicians. Fortunately, we still have the ability to do so by the peaceful means of educating our fellow citizens and pressuring our elected officials to reverse course. We must all do what we can to use these peaceful tools before we are in a “dark winter” of authoritarianism.

Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Global Health Bureaucrats Want Even More Power to Impose Their Plans across National Borders | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 21, 2020

Surely, this all strikes the prolockdown policymakers as rather exhausting. It would be far easier if it were unnecessary to address the fact that jurisdictions like Sweden and Georgia have failed to produce the bloodbaths that were promised.

This could all be solved by imposing a single, uniform global policy an every regime, as directed by global technocrats. This “solution” is apparently already in the works.

Ryan McMaken

In an article last week for the Financial Times, Richard Milne examined the issue of Sweden’s “dissent” when it came to policy responses to the spread of covid-19. The article is essentially a hit piece on Sweden, containing all the usual strategies of portraying the Scandinavian nation as an irresponsible outlier.

Sweden, of course, famously refrained from imposing lockdowns on its population, while relying on targeted isolation for vulnerable populations.

The fact Sweden refused to go along with other states, which, as Milne put it, “as country after country imposed lockdown restrictions on their populations rarely seen outside wartime” apparently dismayed the global media and politicians from other countries who demanded global lockdowns.



The result was a nearly endless stream of media stories about how Sweden’s response to covid-19 was disastrous. These comparisons, of course, conveniently omitted the fact that Sweden experienced better outcomes than numerous countries that imposed draconian lockdowns, including Belgium, the UK, Spain, and Italy. Moreover, as cases and hospitalizations are growing again in these prolockdown nations, Sweden has yet to show any resurgence as of October 2020.

Even more frustrating for the global pushers of lockdowns is the fact that the Swedish policy is “enjoying strong support” and “most of the criticism still comes from outside the country.”

It is quite likely that the leaders of large states and international organizations aren’t terribly fond of this sort of independence still enjoyed by nation-states in these matters.

The relentless drive to discredit the Swedish response is one indicator, and another is the growing chorus of calls for stronger “global governance” in matters of infectious disease.

Politicians, think tanks, and left-wing publications are all pushing for strong international institutions to “coordinate” responses to pandemics. But this then raises a question: Just how much coordination should there be, and how much of the sovereignty of individual states must be destroyed in the process?

These questions ought to highlight the dangers of global political centralization, and this has been illustrated by the global media’s focus on attacking Sweden for its “noncompliance” in the global drive for lockdowns. If one medium-sized country’s refusal to go along with the global “expert” will arouse this sort of vicious counterattack, it stands to reason that any reasonably powerful global institution with powers to impose health policy would happily crush any state that sought to go its own way.

After all, just consider how much easier it would be for global health bureaucrats to manufacture a narrative favorable to their own version of events if Sweden hadn’t done what it did. Without the example of Sweden, it would be far easier for politicians to claim that the death toll in the absence of coerced lockdowns would be double, triple, or even ten times larger than the death tolls experienced in countries with harsh lockdowns.

“Yes, Spain has experienced a terrible death toll in spite of our strict lockdowns,” the pundits might say. “But things would have been five times worse without the lockdowns!” Without Sweden, there would have been no national-level counterexample to point to.

Any situation that contradicted the asserted “you get either a harsh lockdown or an incalculable bloodbath” story would be largely hypothetical. But things didn’t turn out that way. Because of this, we must expect the calls for ever-greater global “coordination” and “governance” to increase. While few of these efforts will ever explicitly call for actual “global government,” the ultimate destination will be—as has been the case with the EU—a global bureaucracy that can demand compliance and implementation of mandates handed down by the governing bodies of these new and strengthened global organizations.

Calls for More Global Governance

From the very beginning of the announced pandemic earlier this year, there have been calls for greater international “coordination.” In May, former British prime minister Tony Blair called for member countries to give the World Health Organization “much greater heft and weight.” In June, current British prime minister Boris Johnson called for the creation of a NATO-like organization that could produce “a radical scaling up” of global responses to disease. Ex-prime minister Gordon Brown has also expressed similar views.

Many global NGOs, of course, have expressed similar sentiments. The Center for Global Development (CGD), for example, concluded in April:

we need strong multilateral institutions and stronger global governance. As the President of Ethiopia put it in his letter to the G20: “These challenges cannot be adequately addressed (…) by one country; they require a globally coordinated response. Just as the virus knows no border, our responses also should not know borders.” (emphasis in original)

While this all sounds very voluntary and collaborative on every level, the far-left Jacobin has noted that these plans all remain rather toothless unless these organizations are given coercive powers. In a July article explicitly pushing for a global democratic government, Leigh Phillips writes:

Some of this agenda could be achieved straightforwardly enough through interstate treaties rather than a new global executive. However, much of it would require real governmental authority for the new body, not least the ability to compel national governments to obey its directives, even if Blair — always the savvier public relations operator of the Brown-Blair duo — makes no explicit mention of the term “world government.”…

The world is already “governed” by some 1,000 treaties and agencies that involve varying levels of finance and enforcement. For these centrists, moving toward a world government would not be a revolution so much as the next logical step, accelerated by the pandemic and the accompanying economic downturn.

Eliminating Local Control

Pandemics, of course, provide the perfect rationale for demanding an end to sovereignty at the level of nation-states. If the refrain is “the virus knows no border,” then it naturally follows that countries unwilling to adopt the “correct” antipandemic policies must be forced to comply. After all, any independence in this matter could be construed as one nation endangering all its neighbors.

Thus, in the new schema, an “uncooperative” country like Sweden would essentially forfeit its sovereignty by not adopting “recommendations” handed down by global health experts. The fact that Sweden’s policy has been pushed by a democratically elected government to a generally approving electorate would be immaterial. All that would matter would be the mandates handed down by a distant global bureaucracy.

Naturally, an international organization with powers like these would also eliminate subnational independence within the nation-states themselves.

In the United States, for example, seven states never locked down at all: Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Arkansas. All of these states have experienced covid-19 deaths per million at rates well below those of states that enacted harsh lockdowns—especially New York and New Jersey. Deaths also remain far lower by this measure in many states that enacted either short or weak lockdowns, including Texas, Georgia, and Florida.

Moreover, like Sweden, these jurisdictions continue to provide counterexamples to the “lockdown or die” claims coming from states that did impose draconian lockdowns. For example, when Georgia was among the first states to end its lockdown—long before most states in the northeastern United States— the The Atlantic declared it an “ experiment in human sacrifice.” Clearly, several months later, this prediction continues to be wildly incorrect. In Georgia, covid-19 deaths per million are still less than half of what they are in New York. And hospitalizations continue to decline. But even if total deaths do double and the rate is eventually similar to that in New York, we’re still left with the question: Why bother locking down at all if the outcome is the same?



Naturally, this outcome would be embarrassing for advocates of lockdowns, so this sort of local sovereignty and independence would need to be eliminated by the global protectors of “public health.”

Were there a global, uniform lockdown policy, of course, prolockdown reporters and politicians would have to worry about being contradicted by “renegade” jurisdictions. Lockdowns would only be allowed to end in ways that suited the agendas of policymakers at the WHO, or whatever far-off governments were making policy for every state, town, region, and nation worldwide.

Inventing New Explanations

The usual narrative having failed in the case of Sweden, prolockdown critics have attempted other explanations. One is that population density is lower in Sweden, so therefore, it will have lower deaths per million. But new research suggests the data is, at best, inconclusive on that matter. While density is likely a factor of some kind, there’s no evidence it is a factor to the extent that would be necessary to explain why Sweden has performed better than the UK and Spain, for instance.

Another theory is that the Swedes have voluntarily practiced social distancing so studiously that this explains away the apparent failure of the “forced lockdown or die” narrative.

But, again, the data doesn’t show this.



In fact, the Google Community Mobility Trends data suggests that Sweden socially distanced less than many European countries that imposed harsh lockdowns, yet had more deaths per capita than Sweden. In other words, the usual explanations proffered by lockdown enthusiasts fail to explain the reality.

Surely, this all strikes the prolockdown policymakers as rather exhausting. It would be far easier if it were unnecessary to address the fact that jurisdictions like Sweden and Georgia have failed to produce the bloodbaths that were promised.

This could all be solved by imposing a single, uniform global policy an every regime, as directed by global technocrats. This “solution” is apparently already in the works.


Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Gates Warning: “We’ll Have a Deadlier Pandemic”

Posted by M. C. on July 16, 2020

Mac Slavo

Straight from the mouth of the person who is all in for depopulation and stands to make billions of dollars rolling out a vaccine, Bill Gates, comes a warning. He’s letting us know the plans for the future: “We’ll have a deadlier pandemic.”

Microsoft founder Bill Gates on Saturday said that Covid-19 medication and future vaccines should be distributed to people who need them the most and not to “the highest bidder.” That means he’s suggesting the vaccine be given to those who cannot afford to buy it. And you should trust Gates, after all, he’s been funding depopulation for decades. “We need leaders to make these hard decisions about distributing based on equity, not just on market-driven factors,” Gates said during a remote Covid-19 conference hosted by the International AIDS Society, according to a report by CNBC. 

But, many in the ruling class are concerned that a good number of people won’t comply with the order to get vaccinated, whether it’s made mandatory or not, and regardless of the cost, i.e, even if it’s free, people won’t be lining up to get a Bill Gates “Operation Warp Speed” vaccine anytime soon.

FDA Commissioner Shares Bill Gates’ Concern: People Might Reject The Coronavirus Vaccine

The World Health Organization said that 21 candidate vaccines are currently in clinical trials being tested on human volunteers, three of which are in the third phase of those trials. This vaccine could be available sooner than winter, although Dr. Anthony Fauci continues to allude to something else taking place in winter as well. 

Those Who Planned The Enslavement of Mankind Warn Of “A Dark Winter” For Us

The COVID-19 “Dark Winter” PsyOp: Question Everything…

This video has a disastrous like to dislike ratio, which is good news. It means, by and large, people are not on board with agenda and the ruling class and elitists will face at least some pushback against this global totalitarian takeover.

“If we just let drugs and vaccines go to the highest bidder, instead of to the people and the places where they are most needed, we’ll have a longer, more unjust deadlier pandemic,” Gates said.  That sure sounds like code for depopulation of the those he deems “undesirable” to share the earth with.

If you know anything about Bill Gates and have two brain cells to rub together, this should throw up a gigantic red flag.  They choose these words on purpose.

“Global cooperation, a resolve to invent the tools and get them out where they’re needed most is critical,” Gates said. “When we have those things, nations, institutions, and advocates working together on this collective response, we do see remarkable impact.”

Take note specifically of the words Gates has chosen to use.  This whole scamdemic is about the New World Order, where the .001%, the elites of the elites and ruling class rule over the rest of the population.  Gates alludes to it several times: “collective” “global cooperation” “unjust deadlier pandemic” “most needed”. This is foreshadowing at best, and depopulation at worst.

Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

5 Million Cases Worldwide, 650,000 Deaths Annually: The Seasonal Flu Virus is a “Serious Concern”, But the Wuhan Coronavirus Grabs the Headlines

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2020

First published on January 27, 2020. Figures quoted for the coranavirus pertain to late January

The common flu virus will infect millions across the globe. It can be easily spread and will especially strike the young and the elderly. But this is not what has been described as the Wuhan virus. The common flu is far deadlier. This is not to downplay the Wuhan coronavirus flu, or to give it its medical name, 2019-nCoV.

The common flu causes up to 5 million cases of severe illness worldwide and kills up to 650,000 people every year, according to the World Health Organization 

In the US:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that so far this season, there have been at least 15 million flu illnesses for the 2019-2020 season, 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths in the U.S. The CDC reports there have been 54 reported flu-related pediatric deaths this season from Influenza B viruses. (The Hill)

China’s Coronavirus

Keeping track of Wuhan virus figures is difficult, not least because of the two-week incubation period. The coronavirus outbreak, which is concentrated in Wuhan, a major transport hub in central eastern China, has so far killed 56 and infected almost 2,000.

The initial symptoms of coronavirus are typically similar to those of a cold or flu, which means it is hard for people to know if they are infected, especially given that the outbreak has coincided with flu season. The mayor of Wuhan said on Sunday evening that he expected another 1,000 or so new cases. But the National Health Commission in Beijing said the number of people currently under medical observation for the virus is 30,453. This raises immediate questions about how and where they are being observed.

The response to the outbreak has been criticized with people complaining that announcing restrictions hours before they could be properly implemented allowed people to evade quarantine. The strict restrictions also risk causing resentment and distrust of authorities and the health messages they deliver.

A massive construction effort is being undertaken in Wuhan to build a 1,000-bed hospital for the virus patients.

In the past week [mid January], the number of confirmed infections has more than tripled and cases have been found in 13 provinces in China, as well as the municipalities Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and Tianjin. The virus has also been confirmed in Hong Kong, Macau, Japan, Nepal, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam.

The virus seems to have a 3 percent mortality rate. However, this could be an overestimate since there may be a far larger pool of people who have been infected by the virus but who have not suffered severe enough symptoms to attend hospital and so have not been counted in the data.

Consequently, it is difficult to gauge just how contagious it is. A crucial difference is that unlike flu, there is no vaccine for the new coronavirus, which means it is more difficult for vulnerable members of the population – elderly people or those with existing respiratory or immune problems – to protect themselves.

The common flu does not grab the headlines. But attach a foreign name to a virus – such as Ebola, Zika and Wuhan – and then the headlines flow.

Apart from the obvious health concerns, there is a political dimension. Some countries, including the US, France, Australia and Japan have suggested that they want to evacuate their citizens from Wuhan and nearby areas. Just how this would take place is unclear.

Images of foreigners being airlifted or bussed out of Wuhan, while Chinese citizens remain, could see passions rise. At the very least, it will appear that there is special treatment for foreigners.

The streets of Beijing this morning are eerily quiet. Residents of the capital would normally be celebrating Chinese new year, the year of the rat, that started on Saturday, by attending temple fairs.

All such fairs have been cancelled. Apart from the family fun on offer at the fairs, they provide a setting where families can pay homage to deceased relatives. Fake money and food would be burnt to appease the spirits of the deceased and ensure good health prosperity for the year ahead.

There is no anger on the streets but a sense of confusion and apprehension. This coming week should see hundreds of millions of people return from the hometowns where the celebrated the new year to their cities of work.

A clearer picture will then emerge of the scale of the problems facing the authorities.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from EWAO

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Just To Be Clear — The Covid-19 Vaccine Will Be Rigorously Tested – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 2, 2020

Just like CDC contaminated COVID test kits.

Don’t be intimidated by the philosophically impoverished. Their bluster is their only tool against you.


Some people claim that the Covid-19 vaccine will not be rigorously tested. That’s a lie.

I worked for a software company once that didn’t test its code in a testing environment. They tested their code “in production.” That worked until it didn’t. Everything fell apart. Customers lost millions. It was the most awful product release I’ve ever witnessed.

Similarly, the Covid-19 vaccine will be tested in production. Notable examples come to mind when people talk about testing vaccines in production.

1955 — Cutter Labs Polio Vaccine Catastrophe 

As reported in the Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine “In April 1955 more than 200,000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.”

1955-1970 — Japanese SMON “Epidemic”

Smithsonian Magazine recalls  the 1955-1970 epidemic of subacute myelo-optic neuropathy (SMON), which mystified and terrorized many, though ultimately proving to be medically induced. While not due to a vaccine, the concern is similar. Examples of “cure as cause,” are legion. Johns Hopkins, in a 2016 published study, pointed to medical intervention as the third leading cause of death over an eight year period. At 250,000 deaths per year, medical error surpasses the CDC reported third leading cause of death — respiratory diseases, which claim 150,000 Americans a year. The Johns Hopkins team claimed the CDC does not effectively collect data on medical error.

1976 — Untested Swine Flu Vaccine  

The 1976 and 2009 stories of untested vaccines offer detailed lessons for our era in their foolhardy similarity.

“This is a story about one time over 40 years ago when poor decision-making on the part of the government led to the unnecessary vaccination of about 45 million citizens,” reports Smithsonian Magazine.

There was a novel form of the flu that killed a US solder in February 1976. The flu that was expected that fall was widely reported to be an outbreak unlike anything seen since the 1918 Spanish Flu.

Smithsonian Magazine goes further “To avoid an epidemic, the CDC believed, at least 80 percent of the United States population would need to be vaccinated. When they asked Congress for the money to do it, politicians jumped on the potential good press of saving their constituents from the plague.”

“The World Health Organization adopted more of a wait-and-see attitude to the virus… They eventually found that the strain of flu that year was not a repeat or escalation of the 1918 flu, but ‘the U.S. government was unstoppable.’”

President Ford was up for re-election that fall and something had to be done. A Salon report from 2009, cautioning President Obama against mass vaccination continues with the story:

“1976 was the year of the U.S. Bicentennial. 1976 was a presidential election year. 1976 was two years after Watergate caused Nixon’s resignation, and one year after the fall of Saigon. The U.S. government, both Republicans and Democrats, had never been held in such low esteem. Practically every elected official felt an overwhelming itch that patriotic year to do something to get the public thinking of them as good guys again. A swine flu pandemic was an opportunity on a plate. What better way to get into the good graces of the voters than to save them from a plague?

“Knowing the Republican president would not, could not veto a bill he requested, the Democratically controlled House attached $1.8 billion dollars in welfare and environmental spending to the flu bill.

“The 1976 to 1977 flu season was the most flu-free since records had been kept; a condition that was apparently unrelated to the vaccination program. The Great Swine Flu Epidemic of 1976 never took place.”

Once informative on the topic of caution around inherently risky medical intervention such as needless vaccines, Salon, The New York Times, and NPR have all fallen silent, as mass vaccination campaigns have mystifyingly become yet another liberal shibboleth.

2009 — Untested Swine Flu Vaccine 

As reported by Buzzfeed, and not too many other outlets, “Dozens of NHS workers are fighting for compensation after developing narcolepsy from a swine flu vaccine that was rushed into service without the usual testing when the disease spread across the globe in 2009. They say it has destroyed their careers and their health.”

It’s a story of government employees naively trusting that everything would be okay if they received a vaccine that had been rushed through testing.

Tested in Production — Taking A Lesson From Other Industries 

Since the Covid-19 vaccine will be tested in production, with very little preliminary testing, it’s worth taking lessons from other industries that have entities that regularly test in production in order to determine how best to effect this end goal.

Best Practices for Testing In Production — E-mail Communication 

When testing in production, a good feedback loop is needed. A direct email address to the manufacturer, ideally read daily by all members of the team that developed the product is helpful.

These emails can’t be filtered by customer service, marketing, or the product team. That risks only a few emails being sent along. The data from these emails can’t be compiled into a document and passed along. They can’t be filtered through a doctor that determines if the data is useful. They can’t be filtered through some obscure government compensation program.

All raw data needs to get to all the right people as quickly as possible, if critical infrastructure is going to be tested in production.

In such a situation, where a vaccine is tested in production, the recipient needs to be handed a piece of paper that says the equivalent of “If ANYTHING seems different, e-mail this address immediately.” Oversampling must be preferenced over undersampling.

If there is going to be success in an effort to test in production, then as much as possible, the research and product teams who developed the vaccine and their executive leadership team need to receive the email of the mother crying at 2 a.m. over her suddenly unhealthy baby, or the son trying to figure out why his mother suddenly took a turn for the worse 11 hours after getting a vaccine.

Best Practices For Testing In Production — Telephone Communication  

Better than an email, because sometimes written words can’t convey what a voice can, is a cell phone number answered by someone on that team 24-7.

We can’t have the kind of feedback loop we have now around vaccines and expect a test in production to work. There has to be a little more skin in the game before a vaccine is tested in production.

Best Practices For Testing In Production — Full Disclosure, Clearly Presented   

There has to be full disclosure and informed consent along the lines of “We don’t know how well, if at all, this vaccine works, and we don’t know how safe, if at all, this vaccine is. You may be dead tomorrow because of this vaccine. This vaccine may disable you for life. We really don’t know.”

It must be plain language. Not legalese. It would be best if it were written by a pipe fitter or a stevedore during his lunch break. It should seek to be about as honest and direct as the European tobacco carton warnings showing photos of tumor-filled lungs and gum cancer lesions.

The Key To Achieving The Manhattan Project Of Vaccines 

It can be taken a step further if those involved in the vaccine manufacture process want to get feedback from the vaccine as quickly as possible and to have as safe and effective of a vaccine as possible, a “Manhattan Project” of vaccines, as some have suggested.

It’s not in the development that the Manhattan Project of vaccines becomes helpful, it’s in the rollout, in the introduction, in the feedback loop, in the follow through. Responsibility, however, is anathema in our era. Drug manufactures have sizable teams dedicated to the mitigation of risk, and the socialization of harm. These are modern-sounding, alternate terms for the age-old concept of “avoiding responsibility.” The responsibility avoidance teams at vaccine manufacturers often rival the size of those teams that help develop the product and those who help in the follow through with the product.

Development work may include patient sampling, virus isolation, virus characterization, standardizing, manufacturing, releasing, manufacture scale up, validation, safety, efficacy, monitoring of adverse events, and regulatory review and approval. Responsibility avoidance might include legal, marketing, lobbying, post-vaccination trials, medical liability insurance, product liability, post-marketing, and scheduling.

Since avoiding responsibility is so written into the DNA of large corporations, and large institutions, fresh ideas like those mentioned in this paper are needed if a Manhattan Project of vaccines is to make any headway.

To expand that thinking, at the time of vaccination with the untested vaccines, if a patient has a problem, in addition to an email address, the following can be provided to a patient in order to facilitate the feedback loop: the personal cell phone, spouse’s personal cell phone, home address, and vacation home address of all executives, government officials, spokespersons, and media sources who endorse the vaccine should be provided to a patient both on a handout and in electronic form.

The Manhattan Project Of Vaccine Safety  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Moderna and the COVID vaccine: what kind of lunacy? « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Posted by M. C. on May 23, 2020

TWO: If Fauci can ram through his partner Moderna’s vaccine, get it approved and released, his heroic status among the dumbed-down public would skyrocket even higher. He could write his own ticket. Head of the giant National Institutes of Health. Director General of the World Health Organization.

by Jon Rappoport

“It’s completely correct to say that NIAID will reap a profit on the Moderna/NIAID vaccine. There are 6 NIAID scientists who work for Dr. Fauci, each of whom would get $150,000/year indefinitely as their reward. So that’s $900,000 to his subordinates every year in perpetuity.” Mary Holland, General Counsel, Children’s Health Defense

Would you buy a used car from the company called Moderna?

The US government has shelled out $500 million to this Massachusetts-based biotech firm for a COVID vaccine.

Based on what?

Forbes, May 8: “It’s a big bet for the ten-year-old company, which currently has 24 products in its pipeline—but nothing yet on the market. The biotech sports a huge market cap of $17.5 billion, but it posted a net loss of $514 million on revenues of just $60 million last year. And most of that incoming cash came from government grants and research collaborations with big pharmaceutical companies.”

Moderna has never put a single product into the marketplace.

Last year, it lost $514 million.

It took in $60 million.

But it’s somehow worth billions.

The COVID vaccine it’s working on utilizes brand new RNA technology.

No RNA drug or vaccine product has ever been certified for public use.

Other companies have tried and failed, mainly because safety was a serious problem.

Moderna is partnering with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the federal agency headed up by Tony Fauci.

How many red flags do you need?

What’s going on?

ONE: Fauci, Gates, and others are itching to get an RNA product approved for public use. In the area of vaccines, the manufacturing process is far quicker and easier than the traditional approach. Thus, they can flood the world with all sorts of new vaccines at the drop of a hat. That’s what they want: a massively vaccinated planet under the gun.

TWO: If Fauci can ram through his partner Moderna’s vaccine, get it approved and released, his heroic status among the dumbed-down public would skyrocket even higher. He could write his own ticket. Head of the giant National Institutes of Health. Director General of the World Health Organization.

THREE: Does Fauci stand to gain a personal fortune from his connection with Moderna, if the COVID RNA vaccine is approved? I don’t know, but of course, a quiet back-door $$$ deal involving Fauci would be a simple proposition.

As easy as billionaire Bill Gates’ Howdy Doody smile.

If Fauci weren’t 80 years old, he’d be an ideal running mate for Joe Biden. And if wobbly Joe won, and didn’t last out his term, Fauci would become the president of the United States. After all, he’s been serving as the interim president for months, dictating lockdown policy and the massive destruction of the economy.

Maybe Tony could tease out a few hundred million more for Moderna, so they could whip up a super-special anti-aging cream for him. Rub on, wait five minutes, and you look thirty. Voila.

It’s time for a medical doctor to win the presidency. It’s a natural. Testing for everyone, wall-to-wall contact tracing, social credit score, mandatory vaccination, immunity certificates, cancellation of the Constitution, laws against freedom, destruction of human life as we know it, daily bullshit medical updates from the Oval Office…

“…Today, the president took out his prescription pad and wrote his latest orders to the nation: ‘If after receiving your RNA Cybervaxx shot, you fall down in the street foaming at the mouth, be aware that you’re experiencing an adverse event. It’s called an auto-immune response. Basically, your body is attacking itself. Hopefully, you’re carrying your cell phone with you. Step one—remove your mask to avoid drowning in your own fluids. Step two—try to bring your tremors and flopping motions under control. Step three—take out your cell and press 9^83*2A-7bX6. This code is case sensitive. Step four—shelter in place, help is on the way. In some areas, especially large cities, there will be delays, owing to technical system overload. Roaming mobs of liberals are rioting. They expected a smooth miracle with Cybervaxx. But rollouts of new technology always involve problems and adjustments. This is how science works. And now a word from the Secretary of the Treasury on the new currency. Bill, take it away’…”

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Messianic World Reformer Behind WHO’s Agenda. (It Isn’t Bill Gates.)

Posted by M. C. on April 25, 2020

The responsibility of charting the necessary changes in human behavior rests clearly on the sciences working in that field. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, economists, and politicians must face this responsibility. It cannot be avoided

He treated his office as a pulpit from which to preach Freudian-inspired ideas about proper parenting and the perversions of religion and popular morality. Much of what he had to say concerned what he saw to be the root causes of war. War, he argued, was a manifestation of collective neurosis: the consequence of poor parenting and social institutions that delivered humanity into a state of perpetual immaturity. He condemned the central institutions of society — family, school, and church — for propagating the dogmas that lay at the base of this collective neurosis.

There are no anti-vaccine organizations with any influence. Anti-vaccination organizations are tiny, underfunded, fringe organizations that have no influence.

Officially, it was part of UNESCO, which at the time was run by the scientific world’s most famous defender of eugenics, Sir Julian Huxley.

In contrast, the pro-vaccination movement is universally dominant. This is where all of the government money goes, not just in the United States but everywhere. This is the message articulated by all of the proponents of world health movements. In short, this is the Establishment. In the United States, it is represented at the top by Fauci.

The CDC, NIH WHO, NHS…all have been caught flat-footed, totally unprepared.

What do we pay these people for?

Their solution is to lock down the world and pray…oops they don’t do that…hope someone comes up with a secular miracle.

Gary North

I have a Ph.D. in history. I am a revisionist (“conspiracy”) historian. I have been ever since 1958.

I have written fat books on historical events and historical causation. I have even written a book on the conspiracy view of history. You can download it here.

As a revisionist historian, I am on the fringe of the fringe of a fringe. In 1958, I became a revisionist historian because of the assistance of a lady who was part of a network of mostly female anti-Communist researchers in southern California. She had a lot of files and conservative books. She introduced me to The Freeman. She also introduced me to the revisionist literature of the Pearl Harbor attack. I learned how to connect the dots at age 16.

I have continued to connect the dots in ways not considered historiographically acceptable.

What I am about to tell you is “the story behind the story,” as Marvin “Robbie the Robot” Miller used to tell us on his daily radio shows in the early 1950’s.

The secret is knowing which questions to ask, and then using the Web to connect the major dots. That will get you started.

Most people ask no questions. They don’t care. Most of the others ask the wrong questions. Then they are lured down rabbit trails by their questions.


The historical questions are these, and in this sequence: what, where, when, who, why, and how? Each successive question is more difficult to answer.

What? The World Health Organization is part of the United Nations.

Where? Its headquarters are in Geneva, Switzerland. But geography is irrelevant. It is an international organization. It is under the jurisdiction of UNESCO: the United Nations Educational and Social Organization. That is located in the United Nations Building in New York City. Why New York City? Because John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated the land. It cost him $8.5 million for 18 acres. The city spent another $5 million. The Rockefellers owned the apartment complex across the street. The value of that property soared.

When? It has been around a long time. The Wikipedia entry explains just how long it has been around.

The International Sanitary Conferences, originally held on 23 June 1851, were the first predecessors of the WHO. A series of 14 conferences that lasted from 1851 to 1938, the International Sanitary Conferences worked to combat many diseases, chief among them cholera, yellow fever, and the bubonic plague. The conferences were largely ineffective until the seventh, in 1892; when an International Sanitary Convention that dealt with cholera was passed.Five years later, a convention for the plague was signed. In part as a result of the successes of the Conferences, the Pan-American Sanitary Bureau (1902), and the Office International d’Hygiène Publique (1907) were soon founded. When the League of Nations was formed in 1920, they established the Health Organization of the League of Nations. After World War II, the United Nations absorbed all the other health organizations, to form the WHO.

We also read this in the entry’s introduction:

The WHO was established in 7 April 1948, which is commemorated as World Health Day. The first meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the agency’s governing body, took place on 24 July 1948. The WHO incorporated the assets, personnel, and duties of the League of Nations’ Health Organisation and the Office International d’Hygiène Publique, including the International Classification of Diseases. Its work began in earnest in 1951 following a significant infusion of financial and technical resources.

From the beginning, the organization was committed to the eradication of disease by means of vaccines.

1947: The WHO established an epidemiological information service via telex, and by 1950 a mass tuberculosis inoculation drive using the BCG vaccine was under way.

Who? This is where it gets interesting. We read in the section on “Establishment“:

The first meeting of the World Health Assembly finished on 24 July 1948, having secured a budget of US$5 million (then GB£1,250,000) for the 1949 year. Andrija Stampar was the Assembly’s first president, and G. Brock Chisholm was appointed Director-General of WHO, having served as Executive Secretary during the planning stages.

G. Brock Chisolm was a high-level administrator in the post-World War II New World Order. He was a Canadian. I first wrote about him in 1959 in a high school term paper. He was one of the big promoters of the mental health movement. In 1957, he became the president of the World Federation for Mental Health. This was why I knew who he was when I wrote my term paper. Wikipedia summarizes:

The World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH) is an international, multi-professional non-governmental organization (NGO), including citizen volunteers and former patients. It was founded in 1948 in the same era as the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO). . . .The WFMH founding document, “Mental Health and World Citizenship”, understood “world citizenship” in terms of a “common humanity” respecting individual and cultural differences, and declared that “the ultimate goal of mental health is to help [people] live with their fellows in one world.Members include mental health service providers and service users. In 2009, the World Fellowship for Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders, an international network of families of people with serious mental illness, merged with the World Federation. The World Federation has close ties with the World Health Organization. For many years after its founding, the WFMH was the only NGO of its kind with a close working relationship with UN agencies, particularly the WHO.

In my 1959 paper (which I saved), I quoted Dr. Chisholm. He wrote “The Psychiatry of an Enduring Peace” in Psychiatry (Feb. 1946).

The responsibility of charting the necessary changes in human behavior rests clearly on the sciences working in that field. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, economists, and politicians must face this responsibility. It cannot be avoided (p. 5).We have been very slow to rediscover this truth and to recognize the unnecessary and artificially imposed inferiority, guilt, and fear, commonly known as sin, under which we have almost all labor and which produces so much of the social maladjustment and unhappiness in the world (p. 7).

There is something to be said for taking charge of our own destiny, for gently putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done quietly, it may have to be done roughly or even violently — that has happened before (p. 18)

Five months after the article was published, he was appointed as the head of the predecessor of the WHO, the WHO Interim Commission. Officially, it was part of UNESCO, which at the time was run by the scientific world’s most famous defender of eugenics, Sir Julian Huxley.

The Canadian Encyclopedia offers this insight:

In the negotiations leading up to the WHO’s formation, Chisholm stressed that the organization must be truly global in its scope. He insisted that it serve the “world citizen” and see past divisions imposed by national borders and histories.

In 2009, the University of British Columbia Press published a book on Chisholm: Brock Chisholm, the World Health Organization, and the Cold War. In a review of this book published on the website of the academic Humanities and Social Science Online, we read this:

As deputy minister [of Canada’s newly created Department of Public Health and Welfare], Chisholm was not a retiring bureaucrat; rather, he repeatedly drew unwanted attention to his department for ill-considered and sometimes outrageous public comments. He treated his office as a pulpit from which to preach Freudian-inspired ideas about proper parenting and the perversions of religion and popular morality. Much of what he had to say concerned what he saw to be the root causes of war. War, he argued, was a manifestation of collective neurosis: the consequence of poor parenting and social institutions that delivered humanity into a state of perpetual immaturity. He condemned the central institutions of society — family, school, and church — for propagating the dogmas that lay at the base of this collective neurosis. Perhaps most famously, Chisholm lashed out against Santa Claus. In an address to an Ottawa audience, he declared that parents crippled their children by consistently lying to them: “Any man who tells his son that the sun goes to bed at night is contributing directly to the next war…. Any child who believes in Santa Claus has had his ability to think permanently destroyed” (p. 43).

The WHO has a page reviewing the book. We read this:

A postscript could perhaps have mentioned that those early visionary ideas have turned out to be not that illusory after all. Chisholm’s hope of universal health services now guides WHO’s Global Strategy for Health for All; his advocacy of a peacekeeping force is now reality, albeit weak, through the UN Blue Berets; his ideas on world federalism are partly translated in the European Union; his anti-nuclear stand has seen the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs receive the Nobel Peace Prize; and his poverty–disease link is key to UN Millennium Development Goals.

It is a highly laudatory review, as we would expect.

In 1959, he was named the man of the year by the American Humanist Association.

What is also significant is the fact that he had no background in epidemiology. He was a psychiatrist. He had been a political appointment in Canada, and he was a political appointment with the WHO. He was the director-general of the WHO in 1946, before it was established as a separate organization. The WHO website says this:

The Canadian Government created the position of Deputy Minister of Health in 1944, and Chisholm was first the person to occupy the post until being elected as Executive Secretary of the WHO Interim Commission in July 1946.Succeeding the League of Nations’ Health Organization, the World Health Organization was established in April of 1948, with Chisholm as its Director-General.

It was Chisholm who proposed the name “World Health Organization”, with the intent of emphasizing that the Organization would be truly global, serving all nations. Chisholm’s vision of WHO was a determining factor in the election for the post of Director-General. Parts of WHO’s constitution, including the definition of health as “…a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”, were first heard in Chisholm’s speech to the final meeting of WHO’s technical planning committee.

The WHO constitution also declares health to be a fundamental right of every human being, and recognizes that “the heath of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security.” Chisholm believed that the well-being of humanity is dependent on the world’s emotional health.

The significant question is this: how did he get the two appointments? That is the question that revisionist historians ask whenever government economic intervention is involved. It is the question that Murray Rothbard asked again and again in his histories of American intervention. It is the question that is almost never raised by conventional historians.

Why? The WHO has been at the forefront of vaccination from its beginning. This has been at the top of its agenda. This historical account appears on the website of the WHO. You can read it here. It was published in 2014.

The immunization programme that saved millions of livesWhat started as an ambitious effort to tackle six vaccine-preventable diseases has become one of the world’s most successful public health programmes. This month the Expanded Programme on Immunization marks its 40 years. Michael Reid and Fiona Fleck report.

Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2014;92:314-315. doi:

In the 1960s, smallpox was still circulating in Africa and Asia. Within a decade of the launch of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme in 1967, the disease had been wiped out globally.

Long before the last case of smallpox was reported in 1977, the idea that a similar approach could be taken with other vaccine-preventable diseases was gaining support.

Dr Donald A Henderson, who joined WHO in 1967 to head the Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme, was struck by how much could be achieved with modest means. “We found very quickly that in Africa the average vaccinator could reach 500 African children a day,” he says. “We wondered ‘why aren’t we doing this with more vaccines?’”

The article offers historical details of the WHO’s program of vaccination.

While other donors joined them, it was the core EPI team at WHO that established the foundation of this global initiative with its cold-chain unit, led by John Lloyd and James Cheyne, “catalyzing a revolution in improved cold-chain equipment and logistics,” Rafe Henderson says.Few countries had immunization programmes and most were just responding to outbreaks, according to Dr Ciro de Quadros, who became head of EPI in the WHO Region of the Americas in 1976, His first step was to get countries to appoint a national immunization manager.

“We brought together the country managers and everyone else from the governments working in epidemiology, primary health care, and so on, and listed the problems – how to improve coverage, do surveillance and organize the cold chain – and analysed them. Then we worked on each problem and solution in each country,” de Quadros says.

In the 1970s countries the world over were keen to launch their own EPI but lacked important elements, including sustainable funding, heat-stable vaccines (in tropical countries), suitable transportation and a system to guarantee vaccine quality.

Of all of the agencies under the auspices of the United Nations, the WHO has been most successful in pursuing its agenda.

For Dr Thomas Cherian, who coordinated WHO’s EPI from 2006 to 2012, the programme’s achievements far exceed the expectations raised by the 1974 resolution. “Virtually all countries have immunization programmes and most of them have dedicated budgets and effective surveillance systems, which are vital for detecting new cases and monitoring the extent to which a population is protected,” he says.Since the 1980s, the quality of vaccines has been assured, through the prequalification system managed by WHO, so that these vaccines can be recommended for bulk purchase by UNICEF, the GAVI Alliance (formerly known as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) and other funding agencies. Thanks to prequalification and other regulatory systems, more than 90% of vaccines used in national immunization programmes are of an assured quality.

Immunization in countries is no longer limited to the six classic vaccines for children: diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis and tuberculosis.

Infants are vaccinated routinely against rubella, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b (a leading cause of bacterial meningitis and pneumonia), rotavirus (a major cause of diarrhoea) and Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria (a major cause of pneumonia). In some countries human papillomavirus vaccine is included for girls between nine and 12 years of age and routine immunization against regionally important diseases such as epidemic meningococcal meningitis, yellow fever and dengue is also offered.

How? This pro-vaccine agenda took money to implement. Its agenda is based on a theory of epidemiology that is almost universally accepted by both the scientific and medical communities. This theory offered a solution to pandemics: a program of universal vaccination. This could only be implemented by government funding and compulsion. This is why the WHO’s agenda takes political connections at the highest level. It takes tax money and political power to implement the agenda.

Because the WHO is international, it has always relied on a program calling for cooperation among national governments. This internationalist vision has always been at the forefront of the creation of the New World Order. That was the personal goal of Brock Chisholm from the very beginning. He articulated this vision. The WHO has never deviated from this vision.

Of all the United Nations agencies, none has been as successful as the WHO in promoting international government cooperation. The public has never called this into question.


Bill Gates was born in 1955. He co-founded Microsoft in 1975. He resigned as the CEO of Microsoft in January 2000. In that year, he and his wife created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 2015, he gave a TED talk on the next pandemic.

Earlier this year, Netflix posted a three-part documentary: Inside Bill’s Brain. It was produced in 2019. The interviewer asked Gates whether any government agency paid any attention to his speech. He said that only one small agency did. In short, his speech was ignored.

This is also worth noting, which the Daily Mail reported:

In the episode titled The Next Pandemic the documentary producers go to a wet market in Lianghua, China, where animals are killed and the resulting meat sold in the same place.This, the documentary explained, makes the wet markets a ‘disease X factory’ as the different animal corpses are stacked on top of each other, blood and meat mixing, before being passed from human to human.

The United States government paid no attention to any of this until it was too late.

What we see from this should be obvious to anybody who is aware of the historical background: Bill Gates until a month ago had no influence at all with respect to the pandemic.

WHO’s budget is about $4.2 billion a year. This has been true since 2008. In terms of purchasing power, the budget is 22% less today than it was in 2008.

Of this, the United States government provides about 20%, according to a recent Fox News report. The Gates Foundation is second. It is expected to pay $531 million in voluntary donations this year. That is 13% of the budget.

There is no doubt that the Gates Foundation is an important contributor to this program. But the idea that the Gates Foundation is somehow the tail that wags the dog is ludicrous. The WHO has been the primary agency of universal vaccines ever since its creation in 1948.

In 1999, the Gates Foundation donated $750 million to set up GAVI. GAVI is today called Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Previously, it was the GAVI Alliance, and before that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization. In 2015, Gates did an interview for GAVI. He said he regarded this as the most important money that his foundation has contributed to.

There is no question that Bill and Melinda Gates are both big proponents of universal vaccination in countries that are facing major diseases. But this is standard operating procedure today. This is what the United States government has been funding since 1948. This is the official party line of the United States government and WHO. In the private sector, Gates is no doubt today the most famous proponent of this worldview. But he has no power. The man who has power is Dr. Anthony Fauci.


There are basic things that a conspiracy theorist or revisionist must do. There are things he must follow. Here are the big ones:

Follow the money.
Follow the confession/ideology.
Follow the organizations.
Follow the media.
Follow the government appointments.

There are no anti-vaccine organizations with any influence. Anti-vaccination organizations are tiny, underfunded, fringe organizations that have no influence.

In contrast, the pro-vaccination movement is universally dominant. This is where all of the government money goes, not just in the United States but everywhere. This is the message articulated by all of the proponents of world health movements. In short, this is the Establishment. In the United States, it is represented at the top by Fauci.

Fauci is the second longest-serving bureaucrat to head a government agency since J. Edgar Hoover. Ronald Reagan appointed him the head of the little-known agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Until late February, almost nobody had ever heard of the organization. Fauci is 79 years old. He has run the agency for 36 years. He could’ve retired. He could’ve retired to become a highly paid lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. But he didn’t. He is a true believer. He is a true believer in universal vaccination. He has made this clear over the past six weeks. He has so much power and influence with the public that Donald Trump is afraid to fire him. He has been Trump’s front man in all of this.

To imagine that Bill Gates is anything more than a very rich advocate of “me, too” public health policies on the vaccination issue is to fail to understand the basics of historical research.

And so, I offer you this piece of advice. Anyone who tells you that Bill Gates is the power behind the throne of the WHO is not a serious historian. He does not know the basics of historical research. He has not followed the money, the confession, the organizations, the media, and the government appointments with respect to vaccination as the only acceptable solution to widespread diseases, including pandemics. He has also not asked the six questions: “what, where, when, who, why, and how?”

I am a great believer in revisionist history. Here is my other advice. If you want to do a revisionist history of the WHO, ignore Bill Gates. Pay attention to G. Brock Chisholm. How did he get the position as the first head of the WHO? Who was behind him? He was a psychiatrist, not an epidemiologist.

The trouble is, newcomers to conspiracy theories are not interested in doing serious revisionist research. They really don’t want to know the background of the WHO. They don’t want to do the painstaking research necessary to trace this background. They want to post a sensational article on Facebook. The problem is, the sensational article was written by somebody who doesn’t know what is going on, and more importantly, what has been going on since 1946.

I figured out who Brock Chisholm was and what he was doing in 1959 when I was 17 years old. Is it too much to expect conspiracy theorists of the WHO to pursue this line of investigation? Yes, I suppose it is.


Today, the WHO is a bureaucracy with a minimal budget, half of it raised by voluntary donations. There is no trace of its old humanist, world-transforming vision of world reconstruction through systematically applied coercion by the United Nations. That was Chisolm’s vision. Today, the UN is toothless. UNESCO is impotent.

WHO’s employees are narrowly focused medical technicians who must content themselves with trying to stop diseases that threaten to become pandemics. Their solution is always the same: a vaccine. But there is no vaccine for COVID-19. So, all that the WHO can do is recommend that national governments put the world’s population under house arrest until someone, somewhere comes up with a vaccine. They are narrowly focused specialists with a hammer — a promised vaccine — who see mankind’s liberty as a nail.

Its policy recommendation has been adopted. Politicians have unilaterally shut down the world’s economy. Bailing out the economy through massive government deficits and counterfeit central bank money is destroying the few remaining traces of fiscal restraint in the West.

This is the bankrupt legacy of Chisholm, Huxley, and the messianic New World Order of the immediate post-war era. They proclaimed a new humanity through scientific central planning by the United Nations. Their heirs are a cadre of specialized technicians with no political power. They have no solution to COVID-19 except to ask politicians to put the world under house arrest until some pharmaceutical firm comes up with a cure for an epidemic that may well have receded before the magic bullet arrives . . . if it ever arrives.

Don’t worry about Bill Gates. He has no power. Worry about your governor, who has enormous power, and who has used it without a vote from the legislature to shut down business all over your state. When is he going to stop paying attention to Fauci? When is he going to cancel your state’s system of house arrest, which he unilaterally imposed on his own authority?


This is a publicly posted article. I would appreciate it if you would post a link to it if you read some Facebook diatribe against Bill Gates and his supposed control of the WHO. Maybe there is some dedicated person out there who will be willing to do the hard work of finding out the people who have been behind the power of the WHO since its inception in 1948. That would be worth investigating. Connecting the dots back to Bill Gates is a rabbit trail. It deflects people from finding out who really have been the powers behind the throne, and what their agendas have been.

Be seeing you

Printer-Friendly Format



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Vimeo Bans Documentary Exposing “Big Pharma’s” Influence Within The World Health Organization – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

In Brief

  • 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”).


In our world today, there is the powerful presence of a digital Orwellian “fact checker” that’s going around the internet and social media deleting any evidence that threatens corporate, political, financial or elitist interests, or information that simply highlights the corruption within agencies that have been tasked to safeguard us. The elimination of content from various platforms, like Vimeo, Youtube, Facebook and more is being done so in an immoral and unethical manner.

This is why we here at Collective Evolution are concerned that our Facebook Page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list.

The more that sound information is censored, the more it’s simply going to contribute to the awakening of more people, and more people are going to seek out that censored information and evaluate it for themselves.

Below is a message from  Oval Media, producers of Trust WHO. In the video you can see a snippet of the documentary. It features a number of scientists and doctors, and former officials from within the World Health Organization. If you’re interested in watching the full version, you can support them and do so here while it’s still up. They are also currently fundraising for a documentary they would like to produce on the current COVID-19 pandemic. You can contribute here and find out more about that if interested.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

They Are Rolling Out The Architecture Of Oppression Now Because They Fear The People – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on April 13, 2020

“World Health Organization executive director Dr. Michael Ryan said surveillance is part of what’s required for life to return to normal in a world without a vaccine. However, civil liberties experts warn that the public has little recourse to challenge these digital exercises of power once the immediate threat has passed,” reads a recent VentureBeat article titled “After coronavirus, AI could be central to our new normal“.

“As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world,” NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said in a recent interview. “Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what is being built is the architecture of oppression.”

“Apple Inc. and Google unveiled a rare partnership to add technology to their smartphone platforms that will alert users if they have come into contact with a person with Covid-19,” reads a new report from Bloomberg. “People must opt in to the system, but it has the potential to monitor about a third of the world’s population.”

“World Health Organization executive director Dr. Michael Ryan said surveillance is part of what’s required for life to return to normal in a world without a vaccine. However, civil liberties experts warn that the public has little recourse to challenge these digital exercises of power once the immediate threat has passed,” reads a recent VentureBeat article titled “After coronavirus, AI could be central to our new normal“.

“White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s task force has reached out to a range of health technology companies about creating a national coronavirus surveillance system to give the government a near real-time view of where patients are seeking treatment and for what, and whether hospitals can accommodate them, according to four people with knowledge of the discussions,” reads a recent article by Politico, adding, “But the prospect of compiling a national database of potentially sensitive health information has prompted concerns about its impact on civil liberties well after the coronavirus threat recedes, with some critics comparing it to the Patriot Act enacted after the 9/11 attacks.”

“Mass surveillance methods could save lives around the world, permitting authorities to track and curb the spread of the novel coronavirus with speed and accuracy not possible during prior pandemics,” The Intercept‘s Sam Biddle wrote last week, adding, “There’s a glaring problem: We’ve heard all this before. After the September 11 attacks, Americans were told that greater monitoring and data sharing would allow the state to stop terrorism before it started, leading Congress to grant unprecedented surveillance powers that often failed to preempt much of anything. The persistence and expansion of this spying in the nearly two decades since, and the abuses exposed by Snowden and others, remind us that emergency powers can outlive their emergencies.”

As we discussed recently, it’s an established fact that power structures will seize upon opportunities to roll out oppressive authoritarian agendas under the pretense of protecting ordinary people, when in reality they’d been working on advancing those agendas since long before the crisis being offered as the reason for them. It happened with 9/11, and we may be certain that it is happening now.

The reason for this is simple: the powerful are afraid of the public. They always have been. For as long as there has been government power, there has been the fear that the people will realize the power of their numbers and overthrow the government that is in power. And understandably so; it has happened many times throughout history.

This is more the case now than ever. The oppressive, exploitative nature of neoliberalism has created a dissatisfaction that’s converged with humanity’s historically unprecedented ability to network and share information, which has seen anti-government protests and movements arising all around the world. Despite the longstanding media blackout on the Yellow Vests protests in France, you may be absolutely certain that eyes widened and leaders snapped to attention all around the planet when the words “We’ve chopped off heads for less than this” were scrawled in graffiti on the Arc de Triomphe during the early days of the demonstrations.

Leaders are made vastly more fearful and skittish by the fact that this dissatisfaction with the current world order just happens to be occurring at a time when that world order is already at its most tenuous point in decades, with a surging China poised to surpass the US as a superpower on the world stage and collaborating with Russia and other unabsorbed nations to create a truly multipolar world. It becomes much more difficult to control dominant narratives in a way that can effectively manufacture consent for the aggression that will be necessary to freeze and reverse this shift away from unipolar domination when the denizens of that unipolar empire are out in the streets demanding its downfall.

And so of course internet censorship is being ramped up as well, with the mass media demanding that plutocrat-owned tech companies do more to combat coronavirus “disinformation” and these government-allied tech giants all too happy to oblige. In a recent escalation in this ongoing trend, Youtube changed its rules and began deleting videos accordingly after David Icke said there is a connection between coronavirus and 5G in a controversial video on that platform. Youtube is owned by Google, which has been a military-intelligence contractor with ties to the CIA and NSA since its very inception; you don’t have to like Icke or his views to be repulsed by the idea of this institution manipulating human communication with an increasingly iron fist.

The escalations in internet censorship and the escalations in surveillance are both directed at a last-ditch effort to control the masses before control is lost forever, and neither are intended to be rolled back when the threat of the virus is over. People are now off the streets, with their communications being restricted and the devices they carry in their pockets being monitored with more and more intrusiveness. There are of course some good faith actors who legitimately want to protect people from the virus, just as there were some good faith actors who wanted to protect people from terrorism after 9/11, but where there is power and fear of the public there will be an agenda to reel in the freedom of the masses.

Journalist Jonathan Cook said it best when he wrote, “Our leaders are terrified. Not of the virus – of us.”


Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics onTwitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »