Madison Area Lyme Support Group

Recently, I had a chance to interview three courageous whistleblowers at the Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas. What they had to say was a mind-blowing condemnation of the state of our “healthcare” system.

We talked about the COVID vaccine mandates that Houston Methodist Hospital “spearheaded” in the U.S. back in 2021, about vaccinated and boosted nurses getting “COVID” anyway — and being forced to come in to work at the ICU while sick with fevers — and about the tremendous fear that the doctors felt over speaking out.

We also talked about a top executive at Houston Methodist allegedly offering the physicians in his inner circle an opportunity to fake the vaccine — while publicly touting COVID injections as a necessary and life-saving measure.

Now, philosophically speaking, it is not that shocking to me as a Soviet expat. That is how things were universally done in my old homeland — public and private policy, so to speak — but seeing such blatant, time-warped signs of all-permeating corruption and censorship-driven behavior in America, as if I were back in the USSR, is bizarre. But first things first. Let me introduce the Houston Methodist whistleblowers.

Dr. Mary Crow

Dr. Mary Crow is a well-respected oncologist and hematologist in Texas. She received her medical training at Baylor College of Medicine and has been practicing for over 30 years. In the 1990s, Dr. Crow was a Chief Oncology Fellow at the MD Anderson Cancer Center.

She is a member of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the Harris County Medical Society (HCMS) and the Texas Medical Association (TMA).

Dr. Crow has been very outspoken about the not-so-scientific nature of the “COVID response” from the get-go. When Houston Methodist introduced the mandates for physicians, she applied for a religious exemption. As a result, she was not granted an exemption, and she lost he medical privileges at Houston Methodist.

(To clarify, the term “medical privileges” stands for the right of a physician to work at a hospital. In Texas, physicians are not considered hospital employees but independent professionals who work with hospitals where they have “privileges.”)

Dr. Venu Julapalli

Dr. Venu Julapalli is a gastroenterologist in Houston, TX. He received his medical degree from Baylor College of Medicine in in Houston, TX, and has been practicing for more than 20 years. In 2005, he founded a groundbreaking gastroenterology private practice in Houston, TX.

Together with his cardiologist brother, Dr. Vinay Julapalli, Dr. Venu is on a quest to bring the heart back to modern medicine and to restore the sacred relationship between patients and doctors. Both Dr. Venu and Dr. Vinay have been on this quest for a long time.

In 2021, after Houston Methodist Hospital mandated COVID injections for physicians, Dr. Venu Julapalli’s religious exemption was denied, and his privileges at the hospital were suspected and eventually revoked. In the summer of 2021, he filed a lawsuit. His lawsuit is still pending. If you are looking to learn more about Dr. Venu Julapalli and his lawsuit, I interviewed him in detail about it in August 2021.

Another thing that he did in 2021 was organizing an internal listserv for the “medical staff” (physicians with “medical privileges”) at Houston Methodist. The list initially consisted of about a thousand physicians. The purpose of the listserv was to have open conversations about what was going on. A few doctors, such as Dr. Mary Crow, were very outspoken, and questioned the rationale behind the official “COVID response.”

Most weren’t outspoken at all though, even on the internal listserv. Many were afraid to talk. They had concerns — which they shared privately with Dr. Julapalli — but they were too scared to speak loud.

When talking about it, Dr. Venu Julapalli takes no prisoners and makes a great point: If all the doctors who had sincere concerns found the guts to voice their concerns out loud, we wouldn’t be dealing with the nightmare that we are dealing with today.

Conclusion? We have a free will for a reason, and our choices actually matter! Our courage matters. The world takes the shape of our collective choices, and at any moment when we feel scared, or insignificant, or powerless, we are just making the world smaller.

Owen Robinson

Owen Robinson is a registered nurse who has been working in critical healthcare for twelve years. He has been taking care of patients all through 2020 — until he was terminated for declining the booster.

Owen got the original series of COVID injections early on. He did it based on the fact that the general understanding in his circles was that vaccines were good, and safe, and of course properly tested. What also impacted his choice at the time was the fact that he had seen people dying with COVID symptoms in the ICU with his own eyes. According to Owen, the number of people dying during that time was truly larger than what he had seen before COVID.

However, once he himself got sick and tested positive for COVID — and especially when he saw the vaccinated and boosted nurses developing COVID symptoms and working sick — he realized that the claim of “doing this for patient safety” was not panning out.

He also saw that the procedures were organized in such a way that the vaccinated and boosted nurses were almost more likely to be working sick and potentially “spread COVID” than the perpetually tested nurses with religious exemptions.

Vaccinated and Boosted Nurses Forced to Work While Sick

The straw that “broke the camel’s back” for Owen Robinson was when he saw two vaccinated nurses forced by their superiors to come in sick, with fevers — and one of the nurses was so sick that she had to spend the day sitting at her desk with her head down, while the new trainee nurse was doing her job.

Another nurse, not in the ICU, passed out on the hospital floor in the middle of her shift and had to be taken to the emergency room. Allegedly, when it happened, she was taking care of a patient who was unstable, and, based on what Owen had heard, the situation impacted the patient’s condition. In his own words:

[When Houston Methodist announced the mandate], I didn’t agree with the mandate, but I’d already been vaccinated, so I was able to keep my position. Then about the same time that the CDC dropped the … the requirement for nurses … first it was 14 days from being positive for COVID that a nurse could come back into work. Then it went to 10 days.

And about that time, I got COVID. I was positive for COVID. I was out for work, they dropped it from 14 to 10 days, and I told them I’m not coming back in with symptoms […]. If I have symptoms, I’m not coming back in with COVID. And they were like, Okay, well, we’ll see. And they didn’t make me come back in at that time.

So then I came back to work, people are getting sick people have been vaccinated, fully vaccinated with the booster … they had they mandated the booster. [… I refused to get the booster after my exemption expired, and I was suspended and then terminated].

The thing that that caused me to really walk away, was when I came back to work, not only were the fully vaccinated and boosted nurses getting sick, but the CDC dropped that window to five days for nurses to come back in after they tested positive. And the director of our ICU forced two nurses to come back into the unit, sick with fevers and symptoms, and to take care of patients in the ICU, possibly immunocompromised patients in the ICU.

One of the nurses was so ill that she sat at the desk with her head down on the desk most of the day. And she had a trainee, a new nurse who was doing all of her work for her and taking care of her patients for her. And it would just not sit well with me. I didn’t think that was right. I didn’t think it was safe.

They made us … when we applied for an exemption, they made us sign this, this list, that said, I know that I’m not safe for my patients, I know that I’m not safe for my co-workers, because I’m refusing to get this vaccine …

I know that, you know, all these things that that you had to agree that that didn’t even make sense and were very negative, basically … and you had to sign that just to get an exemption. And then the people who did get the exemptions had come in and swab every week.

And then of course, a lot of some people got religious exemptions, and then when they came out with this latest bivalent vaccine, then they pulled all of those religious exemptions for people and fired them anyway. So it was just, it was just terrible situation.

“Air Vaccines”

One of the most explosive parts of the interview was the segment where we talked about how allegedly, a top executive at Houston Methodist was offering select physicians “air vaccines,” a way to fake their vaccination status to circumvent the mandates — all while publicly promoting the mandates as a necessary and noble safety measure.

That, now, brings me straight back to my childhood because this is exactly how things were done in the USSR. Here is the segment of the transcript:

Tessa Lena:

And so now we are coming to the juicy part of the interview, the fake, the air vaccines. So from what I understand the very top management at the hospital at Houston Methodist, the very management that was mandating the vax … […] and promoting it as a safety precaution, a very important one, the very same people were allegedly offering up fake vaccines to the people they liked or trusted … to the physicians they liked or they trusted, to their close circle? So let’s talk about that.

Dr. Venu Julapalli:

So let me give a little context to this. In the course of the exchanges that we were having on the listserv, I would get private messages from folks who would just talk about various things. It was either for support or some question.

So one of those individuals, a colleague, messaged me, she had gotten her initial vaccination. And then Methodist mandated the booster. This was in February 2022. She didn’t want to take the booster. So she filed her religious exemption, it was denied. And so she basically was asking, well, what am I supposed to do now.

And in the course of that conversation, she wanted to talk to us, me and my brother, who’s also on staff at Houston Methodist, The Woodlands. And so we had a coffee meeting, meeting with coffee, and she told us that one of her colleagues, who is the Chief Medical Officer at Houston Methodist at The Woodlands offered her the opportunity to fake the vaccine.

Now, this is, the person who’s being offered this is well respected. Obviously, the Chief Medical Officer wants to keep her there. And she told us that she was taken aback and asked the Chief Medical Officer, if this is something that was asked or offered before, or she was the first one that was offered to and, and the response apparently, that he said that, that he could neither confirm nor deny whether it was offered before.

Now, of course, she didn’t take up the offer. And she ended up getting a religious exemption approved shortly after all went forward. But that’s what apparently is going on.

Now. I don’t know how pervasive this is. I don’t know how extensive this is. I don’t know where this stops, apparently was something that was being done within the … the system, but I don’t know how it was happening. But to me, it just is a culture issue. I mean, this is the Chief Medical Officer at this institution, the institution that started it all on this whole vaccine mandate.

My understanding is that this particular person didn’t even approve of the booster, he no longer thought that this was, this was a good policy. And … and even … he even expressed that. So in that respect, I mean, it’s not really even about the Chief Medical Officer, he’s obviously trying to help somebody out and … and keep somebody that is valued and respected. What kind of culture puts a person in that kind of Catch-22 situation?

I mean, I wouldn’t do it if I were in that situation, but he’s put in that situation. And he’s compelled to, you know, offer somebody the Underground Railroad.

There’s something deeply wrong with the culture, when that very policy that was established by this institution, that they put all of their brand and all of their reputation behind … in fact, in their own words they want to lead the country on … has one of its own executive officers giving somebody a way out?

Tessa Lena:

Well, it poses several questions. One, the most important one of them, the one that is straight in our faces is that if somebody truly believed that the vaccines are needed for safety, then one would not offer a fake one because then one would be afraid for his own life, right? […] You’d want everybody to get it. If you’re genuinely thinking that that’s what’s needed to protect our health. And his own, for that matter.

Dr. Venu Julapalli:

I mean, that’s … that’s such an obvious thing that we actually take that for granted. But you’re absolutely correct. I mean, that leads … that really calls up this point, how do we know anybody’s done anything? I mean, there was no verification process. I mean, if you were just … if you said you were vaccinated, you were considered vaccinated.

So, you know, Methodist will keep going out there, the CEO, Dr. Marc Boom, would go out onto CNN, MSNBC, saying we’re 99% vaccinated. Well, how does he know that? I mean, how does he know who actually took it? Or who actually faked it? How do we know anything at that point?

Tessa Lena:

Well, theoretically, if you decided to be dishonest and not fight the honest fight but instead say that you got the vaccine, just say it, would anybody check your records, your … your card, your CDC card or anything like that?

Dr. Venu Julapalli:

As far as the medical stuff was concerned, no.

Tessa Lena:

So chances that some people, just by human nature, that are considered vaccinated on the system now, that maybe they didn’t even get it, they just said it? It’s possible?

Dr. Venu Julapalli:

Oh I think it’s possible, yes. And how pervasive is it … is the next question on my mind.

Tessa Lena:

I mean, the absurdity of it is just stunning. And so, and as far as you know, this, air vaccine was offered on the booster mandate stage of it, right?

Dr. Venu Julapalli:

That’s when we were informed of the story. So that … that leads to another question. Well, how, when was the system like this begun? Was it begun at the very beginning? Did it only come on later, when, you know, other information had come out, and people were getting more reluctant to do this?

I can certainly say that by the time of the booster mandate, in terms of what I was getting, because we actually surveyed this on the listserv, the medical staff had started originally, in vast majorities of support for the first series.

So we were in the minority, those of us who didn’t, who felt that mandatory vaccination was not a good policy, we were in the minority. By the time of the booster mandate, which was February 2022, that tide had completely turned.

I mean, we had in our survey, 75 to 80% of people saying that the booster mandate and termination of privileges as a result of not following that mandate was not a good policy. Of course, they don’t say that in public and on the record, but they would say that anonymously on a survey.

By the way, per Owen Robinson, unlike doctors, the nursing staff at Houston Methodist had to actually “prove” their vaccination status — which is to say that the randomness of the entire affair was truly Soviet-like.

Burnouts, Mandates and Staffing Shortages

For months now, we’ve been hearing from the mainstream media that the staffing shortages in healthcare are due to “burnout.” According to Owen, while there was some burnout, it was mostly due to the poor administrative management of the situation. He believes that the hospital became truly “overwhelmed” after the vaccine mandates caused many employees to quit, and the staffing shortage became severe.

Also, during the “Omicron” wave, a lot of the people occupying COVID hospital beds didn’t have any symptoms at all or only mild cold symptoms. The reason for that was that the hospital was testing all patients for COVID, even if they came to the hospital with a broken leg. And then, if they tested positive, they would be hospitalized and given a course of Remdesivir.

He notes that while he is a nurse and it’s not his place to diagnose, there were many patients without symptoms or with light symptoms treated for COVID as a part of this protocol, and since the beds were occupied by the people who weren’t very sick at all, the ones who needed to be hospitalized had a harder time getting hospitalized. A mind-twister, indeed! Dr. Crow adds:

“The hospitals had no surge capacity, Tessa, and they have … haven’t had it for 10 or 15 years. The summer before COVID, any one of these hospitals in The Woodlands was on drive by. They had no available beds two days out of seven in the summer. And then when they decided to accept limited trauma, it got worse.

So this idea that the hospitals were overwhelmed was ridiculous, because they were already overwhelmed, all right. These hospitals operate at 98% capacity on a given day.”

Fertility Concerns

Another thing that Dr. Crow mentioned in the interview was her concerns over the effect of the COVID injections on fertility. In her own words:

I see a lot of young women for severe iron deficiency […] we talked about their symptoms, a lot of menstrual irregularities, difficulty getting pregnant, miscarriages, and I thought, well, maybe they’re under stress, everybody’s under stress. And you started hearing this out in … among the vaccinated certainly as the boosters started rolling out.

And if you notice in all the highly vaccinated countries, Iceland, Ireland, UK, there is no baby boom. There’s no baby boom. In fact, there is a drop in babies and this was occurred in Germany and in the EU as well. So I remain very concerned about this moving forward.

Because in the Japanese bio localization study, these lipid nanoparticles bio located in the ovaries, the testes, the spleen, the bone marrow in the liver, okay. And in none of the animal trials, or the vaccinated, the offspring of the vaccinated animals went on to go and get pregnant, they were all killed after nursing.

So I think there is a ticking time bomb here. Because if you look at Africa, which is only 6% vaccinated, they’re not having any fertility problems. And they’re having … they’re having no excess mortality. And they’re doing … and they’re having no COVID.

So there’s something that’s very wrong here, when you actually get into the data. And this is based on the data that these countries have released when they release it. All right, you got to look forward a little bit. But I would just ask my OBGYN colleagues, are you seeing a baby boom? Because every time you lock up human beings, even in the concentration camps, people got pregnant and had babies, and that’s not really happening.

Conclusion

It makes me wonder what our life would be like today if every person — every doctor, every journalist, ever lawyer, every artist, every scientist, etc. — chose to be brave.

There is an art and science to bullying. There is a technique to driving people crazy. There is a methodology to elevating the sense of helplessness and obfuscating the power that we truly have from the moment we are born.

I pray that all this pain we’ve been through is not in vain, and that the ones who have been timid up to this second, connect to their inner lion and choose to be new and brave from now on. I pray that their inner lion guides them on the path of fixing the wrongs that they allowed to happen on their watch. The pain needs to be healed. It is never too late to be brave. It is never too easy to be brave but it is also never too late. There is work to do. Can you see your inner lion? I can.

Source

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

And the whistleblowers just keep on coming:

• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/08/10/pfizer-whistleblower-confirms-covid-injection-is-a-bioweapon/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/08/24/gsk-whistleblower-covid-vaccine-caused-sterility-in-97-of-women/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/11/30/american-heart-association-data-confirmed-whistleblowers-state-covid-shots-lead-to-increased-heart-attacks/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2022/03/29/researcher-blows-whistle-on-data-integrity-issues-in-pfizers-covid-shot-trial/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2022/11/02/hospital-whistleblower-on-significant-decrease-in-birth-rates-increases-in-stillbirths-vaids/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2023/01/16/us-biotech-cartel-behind-covid-origins-cover-up-chair-of-lancet-covid-19-commission/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/09/22/three-whistleblowers-covid-jab-exposed-patients-deserve-to-be-heard-shots-kill-more-than-they-save/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/10/07/another-pfizer-whistleblower-reveals-internal-emails-we-want-to-avoid-having-information-on-fetal-cells-floating-out-there/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2022/10/05/army-whistleblower-dod-fda-violate-federal-code-falsify-vaccine-injury-records/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2022/01/27/nurse-whistleblower-possible-botched-admin-of-covid-shots-on-kids-some-people-got-the-wrong-one/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/12/06/webinar-prosecuting-those-behind-covid-mass-murder-british-scientist-proves-fraud-mass-vaccination-boosters-as-harmful-as-mold-on-the-wall-another-nurse-whistleblower-speaks-out/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2022/07/11/funeral-director-whistleblower-shows-blockages-removed-from-man-who-died-of-sads/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/11/03/another-whistleblower-promptly-fired-for-showing-pfizer-falsified-data-got-science-are-you-sure/
• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2022/07/06/pfizer-asks-court-to-dismiss-whistleblower-lawsuit-because-government-was-aware-of-fraud/

In late February 2023, Moderna agreed to pay $400 million to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for the patent it holds on Moderna’s mRNA shot.¹

The patent process is a part of the COVID mRNA shots that the media haven’t really addressed and people in general don’t know anything about — probably because it’s a total racket. Based on internal documents and correspondence, it appears the NIAID funded the creation of SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, it patented and receives royalty payments for the “vaccine” against said virus.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is supposed to be the primary government agency responsible for public health research, but by the looks of it, it appears instead to be in the business of creating public health threats in order to profit from them.

And the agency itself isn’t the only one raking in profits. Many patents are held by individuals working at the NIH/NIAID. So, taxpayers fund research that may or may not work out, while Big Pharma, the NIH and individuals at the NIH profit from products that end up on the market. This is a clear conflict of interest that can hurt public health in any number of ways.

For starters, it incentivizes the NIH to support and promote potentially dangerous drugs, as we’ve clearly seen during the COVID pandemic. The NIH also has a significant stake in regulations that impact patents and vaccine mandates, and may use its influence to benefit itself rather than the public.

Conflicts of Interest Influence Public Health Policy

In the Full Measure video above, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson reports the findings of watchdog group Open The Books, which recently took a deep dive into “the issue of government scientists collecting royalty payments from pharmaceutical companies for discoveries made while working on your dime.”

According to OpenTheBooks.com founder and CEO Adam Andrzejewski, the NIH distributes $32 billion of taxpayer funds as research grants each year to an estimated 56,000 different entities. “That basically buys you the entire American health care space,” he says.

As the largest federal grant-maker, the NIH has a monopoly on what research gets done and what doesn’t, as it decides which scientists and projects get that money. Scientists vying for grants also recognize that in order to get a piece of that pie, they have to play by the rules, and that means doing work that supports establishment narratives on public health policy.

But that’s not all. The NIH is also gobbling up patents, which further weakens its incentive to protect and promote what’s truly in the public’s best interest due to the financial conflicts of interest that come into play.

How the Third-Party Royalty Complex Works

As explained by Andrzejewski, under the 1984 Bayh-Dole Act, government scientists can collect royalties from drug companies for discoveries they make while working on the public’s dime:

“Here’s how the third-party royalty complex works. You have a government scientist funded by taxpayers, and they work in a government lab that’s also funded by taxpayers. And when they have an invention [a drug, device or therapeutic] … the NIH … then licenses that invention … to the private sector.

And the private sector then pays royalties back to NIH. NIH then distributes those royalties on a royalty split schedule, back to the scientist. Details of those royalty payments to government scientists are kept as strictly held secrets.”

In fact, these royalty payments are kept under such closed wraps, scientists who receive them aren’t even required to divulge them on their financial statements, let alone to the public. Congress can’t even access those data.

In mid-June 2022, Sen. Rand Paul questioned then-NIAID chief Dr. Anthony Fauci about whether he’d ever received royalty payments from an entity to which he had given a research grant, and whether he or anyone else on the vaccine committee had ever received payments from vaccine makers.² Fauci suffered one of his now-famous lapses of memory and wouldn’t answer.

NIH Fights to Shield Conflicted Parties

Paul’s questioning of Fauci came on the heels of a lawsuit filed against the NIH to obtain these payment disclosures. The lawsuit was filed by Open The Books in October 2021. But while the NIH eventually did release them, many of the most crucial pieces of information were redacted, and Paul’s attempt to get answers led nowhere. As noted by Andrzejewski:

“That lawsuit unearthed 3,000 pages of royalty payments to NIH scientists from 2010 to 2021. During that time, 2,407 government scientists received $325 million in secretive royalty payments, averaging out to more than $135,000 each.

But much is left unknown. NIH redacted or blacked out key details. We don’t know who paid it. We don’t know how much each individual scientist received. We can only see their names and count the number of times that each scientist received a payment.

And they also redacted the invention, the license number or the patent number … So, every single one of those individual, third-party royalty payments has the appearance of a conflict of interest …

We need to be able to follow the money. Unelected bureaucrats are running the entire American health care complex without any scrutiny. They’re basically telling the American people, ‘Sit down, shut up, pay up. We’ll run things.’ And that’s not how the federal government is supposed to operate.”

COVID Jabs Are Rife With Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest also appear to have played a role in the U.S. government’s preferential treatment of Pfizer and Moderna during the pandemic. Pfizer was the first to receive government authorization for its COVID jab, and it just so happens to be part of an NIH royalty-sharing agreement.

Moderna also has such an agreement. What this all means is that the NIH helped invent certain technologies that went into these shots, and then licensed those technologies to Pfizer and Moderna in return for royalty payments.

So, the NIH has been making tens of millions of dollars from the COVID shots. Could that financial incentive influence the NIH’s stance on vaccine mandates? What do you think?

As you may recall, Johnson & Johnson’s COVID jab was vilified for causing blood clots, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration even limited the authorized use of the Janssen shot to people over the age of 18 who have no access to Moderna’s or Pfizer’s jabs, and/or those who voluntarily opt for the Janssen shot, understanding the risks.³

Meanwhile, Pfizer’s and Moderna’s shots also cause blood clots, but neither of them was placed under restrictions. Instead, both were added to the U.S. childhood and adult vaccination schedules. Janssen wasn’t.

The NIH Royalty Cash Cow

The NIH’s secret royalties and the conflicts of interest these payments create were also addressed by “Rising” hosts Robby Soave and Briahna Joy Gray in a recent episode (video above). Alexander Zaitchik, author of “Owning the Sun: A People’s History of Monopoly Medicine from Aspirin to COVID-19 Vaccines,” also joined them on the program.

In Zaitchik’s view, the biggest scandal is not that government scientists are receiving royalty payments from drug companies but, rather, the intimate relationship that exists between government and “an industry that is using the monopoly system to price gouge the American people.”

“The NIH has basically abandoned its role to serve the public,” Zaitchik says, “and instead has become much too aligned with the industry and is an enabler, an accomplice and a protector of these monopolies. The vaccines are a point in case.

Government science was basically given, along with these massive research subsidies, through Warp Speed, to Moderna, for example. And there were no public interest provisions attached.

There were no pricing promises, there were no requests that technology be transferred [shared] with other parts of the world. It was basically a conveyor belt for private industry … So, for me, the real problem is NIH [being] fully aligned with industry on the monopoly question when public science is involved …”

Public Gets Fleeced Coming and Going

When public monies are being used for research, any scientific discoveries ought to be used for the public’s benefit, and the patents should remain public property with broad licensing rights.

This used to be the default position, but not anymore. In the 1970s, Big Pharma convinced Congress that this policy was slowing down innovation, and that if companies were allowed to claim exclusive rights to the patents, they’d be more apt to innovate. The Bayh-Dole Act was an outgrowth of this.

But we can now see why and how that doesn’t work. Public health is literally being sacrificed for profit, and since government agencies are in on it, there’s no one left to look out for the public’s interests.

Additionally, the public ends up getting fleeced twice. First, our tax dollars are being used to fund the research that private companies then lay claim to, and then we end up paying top dollar for the products we funded the development of, as there’s no price competition.

As noted by Zaitchik, while the Bayh-Dole Act is a bad law, it does have a rider that says generic production of drugs created with government funding can be mandated. However, every time patient groups have approached the NIH and asked for this provision to be enforced, as the monopoly is hurting patients who cannot afford the exorbitant prices, the NIH has rejected those requests.

For example, the U.S. Army invented a breakthrough prostate cancer drug, and Americans are paying six times the price for this drug compared to other parts of the world. But even though the government has the power to lower the price by mandating generic production, it refuses to do so.

“The whole system, up and down, has been completely corrupted by the amount of money and power the industry has been allowed to amass, because of the corruption in the patent system in general,” Zaitchik says.

Big Pharma Endangers Public Health

In closing, I’d like to draw attention to a paper published in Surgical Neurology International in October 2022, titled “The Pharmaceutical Industry Is Dangerous To Health. Further Proof With COVID-19.”⁴

“The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry,” the author, Fabien Deruelle, an independent researcher in France, writes.

“In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal.

Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1) financial; 2) to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.”

Deruelle’s paper reviews a long list of techniques that drug companies use to shape and control the science, including the following:

1. Falsification of clinical trials and making data inaccessible
2. Faked studies
3. Conflict-of-interest studies
4. Concealment of the jab’s short-term side effects
5. Concealment of the fact there is no knowledge of the long-term effects of the COVID-19 jab
6. Dubious composition of the COVID shots, with many ingredients remaining unlisted
7. Inadequate testing methods
8. Conflicts of interest within governments and international organizations
9. Bribing of physicians
10. Denigration of renowned scientists who express differing views
11. The banning of alternative effective treatments
12. Unscientific countermeasures that eviscerate liberties and freedoms
13. Government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose isolation, masks wearing and vaccine acceptance
14. Scientific censorship by the media

White Collar Crooks Are Running the Show

Deruelle points out that all but one of the primary drug companies producing COVID “vaccines” — Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Merck and Johnson & Johnson — have long criminal histories, having been busted and fined huge sums for illegal marketing, recommending drugs for off-label use, misrepresenting trial results and concealing information about known dangers of their drugs. Moderna is the only exception, as it’s only been around since 2010. Deruelle writes:⁵

“In 2007, Merck paid $670 million, in 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion, in 2010, AstraZeneca paid $520 million, and in 2012, Johnson and Johnson paid a fine of $1.1 billion …

Since 1995, Pfizer has been assessed more than $6.5 billion in penalties for 42 instances of misconduct; 36 instances of misconduct since 1995, resulting in over $11.5 billion in penalties for Johnson and Johnson; 35 instances of misconduct since 1995 and $8.8 billion in penalties for Merck.

Pfizer is singled out as having persistent criminal behavior and casual disregard for the health and well-being of patients. Pfizer is no different from other pharmaceutical companies, but it is larger and more egregious. Pfizer is a habitual offender, persistently engaging in illegal business practices, bribing physicians, and suppressing unfavorable trial results.”

Will Pfizer Stand Trial?

True to form, Pfizer is also accused of scientific fraud in its COVID-19 jab trial. Brook Jackson, who worked at one of Pfizer’s trial sites, sued Pfizer in 2021 for violating the False Claims Act.⁶ U.S. District Judge Michael Truncale heard oral arguments on the motions to dismiss, March 1, 2023.

As reported by The Epoch Times March 2, 2023,⁷ defense attorneys for Pfizer argued that “whether protocol violations occurred was ultimately irrelevant because the federal government was made aware of them but still granted emergency authorization to Pfizer’s vaccine.”

Jackson’s lawyers countered by saying the FDA authorized the vaccine before reviewing Jackson’s complaint. Judge Truncale has not issued a ruling as of this writing, and Jackson’s attorney suspects it may be weeks or even months before the judge issues his opinion.⁸

Conflicts of Interest Shaped COVID Responses

Deruelle also specifically delves into the conflicts of interest and relationships between the drug companies involved during COVID-19 and governments, international organizations and media — and how they worked the COVID “emergency” for their own benefit. Here are some select excerpts:⁹

“In 2009, the H1N1 episode should already have been enough to reveal that governments and the WHO are not autonomous. Work has shown that the 2009 H1N1 pandemic seems (based on case fatality rates [CFRs]) to have been the mildest influenza pandemic on record. Following investigations by the BMJ, it appears that this event declared by the WHO is significantly tainted by conflicts of interest.

A report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has heavily criticized the WHO, national governments, and EU agencies for their handling of the swine flu pandemic: distortion of priorities of public health services all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money, provocation of unjustified fear among Europeans, and creation of health risks through vaccines and medications which might not have been sufficiently tested before being authorized in fast-track procedures.

According to former head of health at the Council of Europe, W. Wodarg, the swine flu outbreak was a false pandemic driven by drug companies that influenced scientists and official agencies …

During the COVID-19 period, France hired private consulting firms, mainly McKinsey and Company, which is known for working with pharmaceutical companies. The Senate Inquiry Commission reports that McKinsey contributed on all aspects of the health crisis, notably for social engineering strategies on the vaccination campaign and the extension of the health pass …

The suppression of good science and scientists is not new, but COVID-19 unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, suppressing science for political and financial reasons … Since the beginning of COVID-19, much scientific data and expert opinion have been censored or labeled as false or misleading by many internet platforms …

In June 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations signed a partnership (2030 agenda). In the field of health, this alliance is designed to combat key emerging global health threats and achieve universal health coverage. In October 2019, in New York City, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and its partners the WEF and the Gates Foundation, hosted Event 201, a fictional coronavirus pandemic …

Among the partners of the WEF, there are: Pfizer, AstraZeneka, Johnson and Johnson, Moderna, McKinsey, and Facebook et Google. A few months later, a coronavirus pandemic is declared, accompanied by its highly mediatized universal solution, the vaccine …

In addition to Event 201, other pandemic simulations, civil (MARS and SPARS in 2017) and military (Dark Winter in 2001, Atlantic Storm in 2003 and 2005, Global mercury in 2003, and Crimson Contagion in 2019), have taken place over the past 20 years. All these simulations correspond to fear programs induced by false media.

For the general welfare of the population, all these scenarios lead to the same methods (identical to those used during COVID-19): Isolation, control of movements and liberties, censorship, propaganda, and coercive vaccination of the population …

[T]here is no doubt that this is an event manipulated by governments, international agencies, pharmaceutical industries, and the media. In addition to the huge profits obtained by the pharmaceutical groups involved, the primary goal of this ‘pandemic’ seems to be compulsory vaccination, because the introduction of a European vaccine passport had already been planned since 2019 …

The objective of the WHO is to impose the Chinese model to become the norm. That is to say, a system with centralization of each person’s health data and restriction of freedoms for the unvaccinated … A period such as COVID-19 represents a powerful lever for increasing the effectiveness of global governance.”

Conflicts of Interest Threaten Our Freedom

In the final analysis, conflicts of interest and the collusion between government and industry does more than rob us of our hard-earned money. It now threatens our very freedom, as these monopolies are being used to further a totalitarian takeover of global proportions.

As such, we can no longer turn a blind eye or accept excuses such as “these relationships don’t influence our decision-making.” They absolutely influence the decisions being made, and the public is consistently on the losing end. Congress needs to start taking this seriously, and revisit laws such as the Bayh-Dole Act, which is currently allowing private monopolies to profit while no one is looking out for our interests.