https://summit.news/2020/11/16/forced-vaccination-law-in-denmark-abandoned-after-public-protests/
NILS MEILVANG via Getty Images
https://rightandfree.com/news/2020/11/17/covidgate-the-corruption-of-clinical-trials-part-one
By Michelle Malkin
“Truly striking.” “Tremendous.” “Extraordinary.” “Miraculous.” “A great day for science and humanity.” Those are just a few of the hyperbolic responses from government health officials and Big Pharma cheerleaders to preliminary COVID vaccine trial data released by Pfizer and Moderna this past week.
If it all sounds too good to be true, then congratulations: Your B.S. detector is fully charged and operational. (See link for article)
_____________________
**Comment**
This commentary is spot on. And it’s never been more important to have your B.S. detector fully charged than now when logic and proper debate has left science. We’ve entered the “spin zone.”
Malkin points out the issues:
Important excerpt:
Vaccinating billions of people to prevent a disease with a 99% survival rate for people under 70 — all based on clinical trial efficacy analysis of less than 200 COVID-19 cases involving patients with coughs and unreliable PCR tests with significant false positive rates — is not the triumph of science. It’s corruption and it’s the tip of the iceberg.
For more:
There is a full-court press to get everyone to take the experimental DNA vaccine: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/18/who-taps-anti-conspiracy-crusader-to-sway-public-opinion-on-covid-vaccine/
For more on the COVID vaccine: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/21/inovio-covid-19-vaccine-uses-electricity-to-drive-dna-into-body-cells/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/10/05/covid-19-vaccine-explained/
Excerpt:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-anti-conspiracy-covid-vaccine/
By Jeremy Loffredo
An outspoken proponent of government-led tactics to influence public opinion on policy and to undermine the credibility of “conspiracy theorists” will lead the World Health Organization’s (WHO) efforts to encourage public acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine, Children’s Health Defense has learned.
Last week, WHO’s general director, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, tweeted that he was glad to speak with the organization’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health to “discuss vaccine acceptance and uptake in the context of COVID-19.”
In his next tweet Ghebreyesus announced that Cass Sunstein, founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School, will chair the advisory group, which was created in July.
Sunstein was former President Barack Obama’s head of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where he was responsible for overseeing policies relating to information quality.
In 2008, Sunstein wrote a paper proposing that governments employ teams of covert agents to “cognitively infiltrate” online dissident groups and websites which advocate “false conspiracy theories” about the government. In the paper, Sunstein and his co-authors wrote:
“Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.”
The government-led operations described in Sunstein’s paper would work to increase faith in government policy and policymakers and undermine the credibility of “conspiracists” who question their motives. They would also maintain a vigorous “counter misinformation establishment” to counter “conspiracy” groups opposed to government policies that aim to protect the common good.
Some of this would be accomplished by sending undercover agents, or government-paid third parties, into “online social networks or even real space groups.”
Sunstein also advocated in 2008 that the government pay “independent experts” to publicly advocate on the government’s behalf, whether on television or social media. He says this is effective because people don’t trust the government as much as they trust people they believe are “independent.”
WHO has already contracted the public relations firm, Hill + Knowlton. The PR giant, best known for its role in manufacturing false testimonies in support of the Gulf War, was hired by WHO to “ensure the science and public health credibility of the WHO in order to ensure WHO’s advice and guidance is followed.”
WHO paid Hill + Knowlton $135,000 to identify micro-influencers, macro-influencers and “hidden heroes” who could covertly promote WHO’s advice and messaging on social media, and also protect and promote the organization’s image as a COVID-19 authority.
There’s no evidence that WHO has yet implemented any “cognitive infiltration” policies similar to what Sunstein advocated in 2008. If the organization were to adopt such a strategy, and use it to convince hesitant populations to take a COVID vaccine, it would raise questions of legality.
As put forward in a report by the Congressional Research Service, illegal “publicity or propaganda” is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials; (2) purely partisan activity; or (3) “covert propaganda.” By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.
Dr. Margaret Chan, former general-director of WHO, once stated that the organization’s policies are “driven by what [she called] donor interests.”
According to a 2012 article in Foreign Affairs, “few policy initiatives or normative standards set by the WHO are announced before they have been casually, unofficially vetted by Gates Foundation staff.” Or, as other sources told Politico in 2017, “Gates’ priorities have become the WHO’s.”
WHO’s current general director, Ghebreyesus, was previously on the board of two organizations that Gates founded, provided seed money for and continues to fund to this day: GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, a public–private global health partnership focused on increased access to vaccines in poor countries, and the Global Fund, which says it aims to accelerate the “development, production and equitable global access to safe, quality, effective, and affordable COVID-19 diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines.”
If, as Politico put it, “Gates priorities have become the WHO’s,” and if WHO’s policies are driven by “donor interests,” this raises questions as to what online groups, people and websites would be targeted by such covert programs.
The idea of government agents carrying out psychological operations on social media is not far fetched. Earlier this year the head of editorial for Twitter’s Middle East and Africa office was outed as an active officer in the British Army’s psychological warfare unit, known as the 77th brigade, which specializes in online behavioral change operations.
Jeremy Loffredo is a reporter for Children’s Health Defense.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
______________________
**Comment**
Hopefully this makes it crystal clear that there is a concerted, full-frontal assault against those who even dare to question vaccine safety or the COVID narrative. This attack has been going on since the beginning of medicine. All those considered a threat or who defy the narrative are hunted down and bullied. Practitioners lose their licenses, are fired, are investigated by the ‘powers that be’, and are attacked on every possible front.
Probably the worst of all is the smear campaigns: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/03/28/the-truth-never-stood-in-the-way-of-a-good-story-how-to-be-wakefielded/
This happened recently to an experienced epidemiologist who also authored The Great Barrington Declaration which simply takes a more focused approach regarding COVID measures: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/17/author-of-the-great-barrington-declaration-i-did-not-accept-payment/ Excerpts:
I was utterly unprepared for the onslaught of insults, personal criticism, intimidation and threats that met our proposal. The level of vitriol and hostility, not just from members of the public online but from journalists and academics, has horrified me.
Yet of all the criticisms flung at us, the one I find most upsetting is the accusation that we are indulging in ‘policy-based evidence-making’ — in other words, drumming up facts to fit our ideological agenda.
For more:
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/11/curevacs-covid-19-vaccine-produces-grade-3-adverse-events/
Biopharmaceutical company CureVac NV of Tübingen, Germany has released the interim results of its Phase 1 clinical trial on its experimental CVnCoV vaccine COVID-19. The vaccine, which was given to more than 250 healthy adults 18 to 60 years of age, is based on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology.1 2
Unlike traditional vaccines, mRNA vaccines “introduce an mRNA sequence (the molecule which tells cells what to build), which is coded for a disease specific antigen,” wrote Rishma Parpia in an article in The Vaccine Reaction earlier this year.3 She added:
Once produced within the body, vaccine developers say the antigen is recognized by the immune system and stimulates a strong inflammatory response to produce antigens to fight the pathogen. Messenger RNA vaccines are faster and cheaper to produce than traditional vaccines and do not utilize any parts of the pathogenic virus or bacteria.3
According to a press release by CureVac, the CNnCoV vaccine was “generally well tolerated across all tested doses (2-12µg) and induced strong binding and neutralizing antibody responses in addition to first indication of T cell activation.” Trial participants were vaccinated intramuscularly with two doses 29 days apart. These included doses of two, four, six, eight and 12 milligrams (µg). Each dose level was given to groups consisting of up to 10 participants who had previously tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that can cause COVID-19.1
“We are very encouraged by the interim Phase 1 data. It represents a critical milestone in our COVID-19 vaccine program and strongly supports the advancement of our vaccine candidate,” said Dr. Franz-Werner Haas, CEO of CureVac. “Following further data readouts and discussion with regulatory authorities, we remain fully committed and on track to initiate a pivotal Phase 2b/3 trial before the end of 2020.”1
While CureVac reported that it observed no “serious adverse events” related to the CVnCoV vaccine, the company noted that some of the trial participants who received doses of 12 µg experienced Grade 3 adverse events mostly after being injected with the second dose. These reactions included fatigue, headache, chills, muscle pain and fever. CureVac reported that the reactions were “transient” and usually resolved within 24 to 48 hours.1
A Grade 3 adverse event is defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as,
“severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; disabling; limiting self care” such as “bathing, dressing and undressing, feeding self, using the toilet, taking medications.” In other words, a Grade 3 adverse event is serious. It is only one grade removed from “life-threatening” (Grade 4) and just two grades from “death” (Grade 5).4 5
CureVac is currently negotiating a deal to provide the European Union (EU) with 225 million doses of CNnCoV, with an option to supply EU countries with an additional 180 million doses, for a total of 405 million doses once the vaccine is approved by European regulatory authorities.2 6
References:
________________________
**Comment**
This excellent article by Dr. Mercola reveals how COVID-19 vaccine trials are designed: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/11/how-covid-19-vaccine-trials-are-designed/
Important points:
Also, before you believe the splashy headlines that Pfizer’s vaccine is 90% effective, the devil’s in the details: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/14/pfizer-covid-vaccine-frenzy-high-volume-of-adverse-reactions-expected/
Please see the following on how this vaccine could damage the immune system, particularly of those chronically infected: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/11/how-covid-19-vaccine-can-destroy-your-immune-system/
More on the vaccine: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/10/05/covid-19-vaccine-explained/
There are already treatments that have proven successful. No vaccine even needed:
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/who-funds-facebook-fact-checkers
© [Nov. 12, 2020] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter
In what it describes as a commitment to “fighting the spread of misinformation,”[i] Facebook claims to work with “independent, third-party fact-checking organizations” to review content and take action against that deemed to be “viral misinformation” or fake news.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has stated that when a post is identified as misinformation, meaning it’s given a warning label as such by Facebook, it results in users not clicking through 95% of the time.[ii]
While presented as a tool to protect the public, what it amounts to is blatant censorship, which can easily push certain agendas into public view while silencing others. Facebook, again, claims to be unbiased, but several of its fact-checking partners receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest.
Who’s behind Facebook’s fact-checking? Africa Check is one fact-checking organization, which launched in 2018 across five sub-Saharan Africa countries. In 2019, they announced they were expanding coverage to prevent fake news from spreading across 10 more languages, including Swahili in Kenya, Wolof in Senegal and Afrikaans in South Africa.[iii]
In August 2019, the Gates Foundation paid $1,478,700 to Africa Check, for the reported purposes of advocacy to increase the accuracy of health claims made by public figures and promote the use of evidence-backed information by the media and others in terms of public health and development issues.[iv] An additional $445,760 grant was also paid to Africa Check by the Gates Foundation in 2017.[v]
Yet, in the Columbia Journalism Review, journalist Tim Schwab said he found 16 examples of Africa Check fact-checking media claims about Gates, and all of them — save one correction about an incorrect malaria statistic — were supportive or defensive of Bill and Melinda Gates and/or their foundation.[vi]
The Poynter Institute is another of the Gates’ Foundations beneficiaries, receiving a $382,997 grant from Gates in November 2015 “to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.”[vii]
The Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) certifies Facebook’s fact-checking organizations, which must adhere to their code of principles.[viii] And, adding in one more layer of conflict, Facebook is also a major donor to Poynter and its subsidiary PolitiFact.[ix]
Bill Gates has emerged as a powerful figure in public health, despite holding no medical degree. Aside from being a top funder of the World Health Organization (WHO),[x] the Gates Foundation funds a number of mainstream media outlets, yielding a potentially disturbing level of control over the free press.
According to Schwab, “I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism.“[xi] Recipients of Gates Foundation grants include:[xii]
|
BBC |
NBC |
Al Jazeera |
|
ProPublica |
National Journal |
The Guardian |
|
Univision |
Medium |
The Financial Times |
|
The Atlantic |
The Texas Tribune |
Gannett |
|
Washington Monthly |
Le Monde |
The Center for Investigative Reporting |
Throwing money at the media means favorable press is a given, and the internet is awash in pieces praising the Gates Foundation’s charitable endeavors. Gannett’s USA Today is one example that has been quick to defend Gates from criticism, including claims that he would profit from the drug remdesivir.[xiii]
The Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, another one of Facebook’s fact-checking partners,[xiv]also pushed back against claims that the Gates foundation would profit from a COVID-19vaccine, stating, “False claims about the Gates Foundation’s connection to the novel coronavirus know no borders” and adding that such “fake news” posts on social media would be “flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.”[xv]
Just how far Gates’ puppet strings over the media extend remain unknown, Schwab reported, because the foundation only discloses charitable grants, not contracts, except for one with media outlet Vox.
“In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture — a level of influence that has landed Bill Gates on Forbes’s list of the most powerful people in the world,” Schwab wrote.[xvi]
In a lawsuit filed against Facebook, Zuckerberg and the fact-checking organizations Science Feedback, Poynter Institute and its subsidiary Politifact, nonprofit group Children’s Health Defense (CHD) alleges that Facebook censored information it shared regarding vaccine safety and 5G health concerns.[xvii]
In their lawsuit, they compared Facebook to the printing presses of 17th century England, through which the government controlled free speech. They allege that government actors, namely the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and WHO, actively partnered with Facebook to censor CHD’s speech critical of government policy.
In regard to Facebook and Zuckerberg, the suit alleges, “At a time when the social media platform and its creator claim to be exponents of free expression and the scientific method for discovering truth, this case reveals the opposite: that they are indeed censors, and opponents of real science and open debate.”[xviii]
References
[i]Facebook, Fact-Checking on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2593586717571940?id=673052479947730
[ii] Reclaimthenet.org May 21, 2020 https://reclaimthenet.org/zuckerberg-defends-censoring/
[iii] Africa-Newsroom August 14, 2019 https://www.africa-newsroom.com/press/facebook-together-with-africa-check-expands-its-local-language-coverage-as-part-of-its-thirdparty-factchecking-programme?lang=en
[iv] Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Grants, Africa Check https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2019/08/OPP1214960
[v] Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Grants, Africa Check https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2017/09/OPP1176188
[vi]Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020 https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
[vii] Gates Foundation, Grants, The Poynter Institute for Media, Studies https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2015/11/OPP1138320
[viii] IFCN Code of Principles https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/
[ix] Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook August 17, 2020 https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/FACEBOOK-COMPLAINT-DKT-1-08-17-2020-a.pdf
[x]Devex June 5, 2020 https://www.devex.com/news/big-concerns-over-gates-foundation-s-potential-to-become-largest-who-donor-97377
[xi] Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020 https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
[xii] Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020 https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
[xiii] USA Today May 14, 2020 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/14/fact-check-anthony-fauci-bill-gates-wont-profit-remdesivir/3120063001/
[xiv] Reclaimthenet August 21, 2020 https://reclaimthenet.org/gates-foundation-funds-facebook-fact-checkers/
[xv]Politifact May 14, 2020 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/14/facebook-posts/no-evidence-gates-foundation-will-profit-coronavir/
[xvi] Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020 https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
[xvii] Reclaimthenet August 19, 2020 https://reclaimthenet.org/childrens-health-defense-sues-facebook/
[xviii] Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook August 17, 2020 https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/FACEBOOK-COMPLAINT-DKT-1-08-17-2020-a.pdf
It isn’t just Gates.
Let’s review the facts:
Please read Hammond’s article in full as he presents so many different cases of media bias. He contacted the author of the USA Today article and exposed the inaccuracies. In the end, they finally changed the title to better reflect the content. He goes into the whole weaponization of “fake news” and the fact the supposed “fact checkers” are continually caught in falsehoods.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 