AH, Pharma, The “Benefits” You Bring, The People You Pay

How Big Pharma Bought the Federal Government

Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor 
how big pharma bought the federal government


  • The gross malfeasance observed throughout COVID-19 has opened many people’s eyes to the immense corruption within our government
  • This corruption has been gradually growing over decades, and at this point numerous well-established mechanisms exist for the pharmaceutical industry to buy out federal employees, guideline committees, and regulatory agencies
  • Much of that corruption has been directly orchestrated by Anthony Fauci, a man who is directly responsible for making the American government no longer serve its people — while being paid handsomely for doing so
  • Addressing the root causes of this corruption is vital for the future of our nation and necessary to prevent something even worse than what we witnessed throughout COVID-19 from being enacted in the future

For a society to function, it requires a collective trust in the society’s institutions. One of the most challenging things for many to come to terms with throughout COVID-19 has been how each institution we trusted to protect us instead pushed a variety of unjustifiable policies and then refused to stop pushing them even as public protest broke out against the harm those policies were creating. I would argue what we saw throughout the pandemic was ultimately a consequence of two things:

  • Medicine is one of the United State’s most lucrative industries (the amount we spend on it has steadily increased each year).
  • The practice of medicine is controlled by regulatory bodies who grant monopolies to any party which can complete the arduous tasks needed to earn their seal of approval.

Because of this, an immense incentive exists to buy out the regulators, so unscrupulously spending large amounts of money to earn a coveted spot in the medical marketplace has become a routine business practice for the pharmaceutical industry.

In turn, as time has moved forward, and the medical industry has continued to grow (e.g., in 2021, 4.3 trillion dollars went to healthcare, amounting to 18.3% of all spending in the USA), the corruption that sustains it has proliferated throughout our institutions.

Because of the wanton disregard for the science we saw throughout COVID-19, much of the public now believes our institutions are throughly corrupt. However, what is much less understood is the anatomy of that corruption and how deeply it has entwined itself within the Federal government.

Tightening the Thumbscrews

A common pattern I repeatedly witness is a new institution being created by strongly investing in creating the idealized version of it, then once that ideal version has earned the public’s trust and everyone becomes invested in its new way of doing things (to the point they can’t return to how things were before), the screws are gradually tightened on the institution. Once this happens, those who work within the institution often become willing to compromise on their values and ethics.

For example, a college education was originally considered a specialized path for those genuinely interested in scholarly pursuits. However, after it became a way for individuals to dodge being drafted into the Vietnam War, many more began pursuing it, which made the Federal Government’s willingness to provide unconditional loans to anyone wishing to pursue a college education give birth to an enormous industry which rapidly inflated the costs of a college tuition.

This, in turn, increasingly incentivized colleges to prioritize growth and to retain their failing students so those students would continue paying tuition.

In parallel to this, the job of a college professor radically changed; previously they were in short supply now a glut of them exists in the marketplace, especially since the growth-focused mentality of higher education has eliminated the previous stipulation that professors needed to be selected on the basis of their academic merit.

Because of this, there are many professors (often with PhD’s) who have a low enough salary they need food stamps to make their ends meet and hence cannot do anything which challenges their employers.

For example, I’ve talked to numerous professors who have stated that they have been forced by their administration to disregard cheating from their students (so they would continue to pay tuition) and a cottage industry now exists for professors to make money on the side by writing papers (e.g., a thesis) for students seeking a degree.

Note: One of the best compilations I saw of the increasing corruption within the educational sector came from a blog by an anonymous college professor. A few years ago he passed away from a grossly mismanaged testicular cancer, so the final posts on it focus on medicine rather than education.

As you might imagine, this issue has also seeped into the medical field as medical schools make a lot of money. In turn, as the years have gone by, colleagues have shared increasingly concerning instances of cheating being swept under the rug or them being pressured by the administration to find ways to pass students who should have otherwise failed.

Likewise, since the position of a professor (and often a graduate student) is so dependent on the papers they publish, they are incentivized to fabricate data so their paper can be published and many studies have shown this fraud has become a widespread issue within the scientific literature.

One of the most overt examples we saw of this came from the recent discovery that immediately after the leak occurred at the Wuhan lab (which Fauci had funded), he panicked and then contacted a group of respected virologists to request they produce a paper to prove COVID-19 could not have come from a lab. The virologists, in turn, did just that, and Fauci repeatedly used their paper to debunk the lab leak hypothesis.

Shortly after, the lead author had a 9.8 million dollar research grant from the NIH approved (which Fauci held the final say on) — which that author lied to Congress about, and later leaked chat messages emerged showing the paper’s authors also lied to the world as they themselves believed the virus had come from a lab.

Note: This paper also formed the basis for Big Tech aggressively censoring anyone who suggested a lab leak had occurred. Had the lab leak hypothesis have been allowed to enter the public discourse, Fauci likely would not have been allowed to direct the response to the pandemic he himself was responsible for creating (especially given that in response to public outcry over previous leaks of dangerous pathogens, Obama had effectively banned Fauci’s research).

Most recently, it was revealed Fauci also covertly met with the CIA when they were deliberating if SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. The CIA in turn publicly announced the lab leak could not be proven, (which amongst other things required bribing the team responsible for the CIA’s assessment).

Another noteworthy example occurred after the vaccines had hit the market and many recipients began developing complex neurological illnesses from them. Some of those individuals (e.g., the clinical trial participants) contacted the NIH for help and were enrolled in a study to evaluate and treat their concerning disorders.

According to one participant (Brianne Dressen), the NIH was initially very interested in helping them (and learned from the FDA that it was aware of other clinical trial participants who had been injured), but once it became clear neurological injuries were a frequent complication of the vaccine, the NIH appears to have decided its best move was to try and bury everything and hence ghost the people it was evaluating for the neurological illnesses.

Thus the NIH publicly denied there was any evidence neurological vaccine injuries were occurring and repeatedly pushed back the date they’d promised Dressen and others to publish the study evaluating them. Had that study been published on time, it would have greatly helped many of the patients suffering neurological injuries that “couldn’t exist” because there was no peer-reviewed literature substantiating those injuries or more importantly guidelines on how to treat them.

In short, I’d argue that the debasement of our educational system has rippled out into the entire society as we depend on its graduates to turn the gears of everything (e.g., by appropriately conducting scientific research), and if we have incompetent or dishonest personnel occupy these positions, the institutions they staff decay as well.

Note: This issue was significantly worsened by Obama’s decision to prioritize academic qualifications rather than real world experience in the federal hiring process. Similarly, most of his senior officials had a degree from an Ivy League college.

Revenue Shortfalls

One of the primary ways the thumbscrews have been tightened throughout the society has been by gradually impoverishing everyone except the working class (most recently, from 2020 to 2021, billionaires went from owning slightly over 2% of the global household wealth to 3.5% of it.). Because of this, almost every institution we depend upon is underfunded and thus willing to consider unethical sources of funding.

For instance, industry often “donates” large amounts of money to schools in return for favorable research being pursued there, and then may threaten to withhold those donations unless an unrelated professor within the college stops performing research that is critical of the industry.

Within the federal government, this impoverishment comes through budgets being slashed and agencies inevitably looking to the private sector for funding. In turn, something similar to what is observed in the educational sector happens, although the scale of it is often far worse.

For example, in 1983, Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” Then in 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention so that CDC could obtain additional funding for its work, or put differently, created a third party for passing tainted money to the CDC.

The CDC Foundation has been accused of egregious conduct since its inception and has received nearly 1 billion dollars from corporate “donors.” The potential for the foundation enabling corruption in turn has been criticized by many, including by a scathing editorial in one of the world’s top medical journals. Many examples of its corruption are documented within this 2019 letter to the CDC. They include:

Being paid by a pesticide industry firm to conduct a study to prove the safety of two pesticides.

During the years 2010-15, Coca-Cola contributed more than 1 million dollars to the CDC Foundation. In return, the CDC offered numerous services including collaborative meetings and advice from a top CDC staffer on how to lobby the World Health Organization to curtail the WHO’s initiative to reduce global consumption of added sugars — which is really something given that the CDC has been tasked with fighting obesity.

Taking money from Roche to push Tamiflu (which the CDC continues to do to this day), an ineffective and harmful flu treatment which was approved off of data that was kept secret from the public.

Note: As of 2019, the CDC also owned 57 vaccine patents and recently spent $4.9 of its $12.0 billion-dollar annual budget buying and distributing vaccines. This may help to explain why the CDC always recommends every vaccine regardless of the evidence arguing against of doing so or how much opposition they receive from the public (and sometimes even their advisors).

Members of Congress have even formally complained about the payments to the CDC foundation (as have anonymous whistleblowers within the CDC). In short, the conflicts of interest with the CDC foundation are immense and help to explain why the CDC always pushes corrupt and harmful policies (e.g., many of the profiteers who benefitted immensely from the COVID-19 vaccination campaign had previously given the CDC millions).

Note: Many other agencies within the federal government, including the CIA and the NIH, have their own foundations that were also created by Congress to allow them to access corporate bribes donations that are not subject to legal oversight such as freedom of information act requests).

Not surprisingly, many of the directors of these foundations, like their peers in government, often follow the revolving door and end up in high-paying executive roles at major pharmaceutical companies after leaving the foundations.

The pernicious influence of industry cash can also be seen at the FDA. On October 29, 1992, in response to public concerns that no AIDS treatments were getting to market (which was a result of Fauci deliberately blocking all of them to clear the way for the deadly and ineffective AZT), Congress and then George Bush Sr. signed into law the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorized the FDA to take money from the drug makers it approved drugs for.

As a result of this act, drug approval times were shortened (going from 29 months in 1987 to 10 months in 2018), and the percentage of drugs that were approved the first time an approval was requested dramatically increased. Conversely, prior to the act, 21% of medications were removed from the market or had new black box warnings added to them.

After the act, this figure increased to 27% as a result of factors such as senior FDA officials overturning its scientists’ recommendations, and the evidence required for a medication approval being lowered.

As a result of these changes, user fees now comprise a significant portion of the FDA’s budget (e.g., 46% in 2022, and approximately of the 65% of that allotted for regulating drugs used in humans) — which not surprisingly has had an increasingly corrupting influence on the FDA’s drug approval process.

One of the best illustrations of this can be seen with the current FDA commissioner Robert Califf, who in 2009, was considered to be too close to the industry to nominate to the position, yet in 2021 was appointed to it, and ever since gaining control of the FDA has advanced the interests of his industry.

For example shortly after the backdoor approval of a controversial Alzheimer’s drug, Califf was a keynote speaker at the annual pharmaceutical industry conference which emphasized the incredible investment opportunities offered by the new Alzheimer’s and obesity drugs (which the agency was also pushing through).

Furthermore in addition to being overtly compensated by the industry for supporting its interests (e.g., Califf had taken a lot of money from Big Pharma), a revolving door also exists to pay them off after the fact. Consider for instance that the second official appointed by Trump to head the FDA, Scott Gottleib is now on Pfizer’s board.

Likewise, Stephan Hahn the commissioner who was in charge of the FDA for the entirety of Operation Warp Speed (and as Peter Navarro showed, against the president’s orders, actively sabotaged affordable and effective treatments for COVID-19) Hahn is now an executive for the venture capital firm that launched Moderna (and thus owns a significant portion of it).

Note: This issue exists beyond the healthcare sector — for instance Lloyd Austin was first a four-star general under Obama, then left to become a board member for Raytheon, and then left that position to become Biden’s Secretary of Defense. Since becoming in charge of our military, one of the worst wars in modern history has broken out, which coincidently required a massive amount of weaponry to be purchased from defense contractors like Raytheon.

All of this has effectively created a “pay-to-play” situation, where it’s almost impossible to get a drug approved unless you have a lot of money and as a result, therapies that put people before profits have a very difficult time getting through.

This was best shown throughout COVID-19 where numerous teams were unable to receive an EUA (or sometimes even permission to conduct American trials) for safe therapies that had strong evidence they were effective in treating COVID-19, while awful but highly lucrative therapies (e.g., Remdesivir, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir) sailed through the approval process.

Given that the Prescription Drug User Fee Act was originally created during the AIDS crisis to help expedite emergency therapies being approved to treat novel diseases, its noteworthy the exact opposite ultimately happened.

Note: I was heavily involved with one team which attempted to secure an EUA, and it was depressing how high a standard we were held to compared to Pfizer.

Likewise, a big part of why Steve Kirsch originally got involved with the vaccine issue was because he provided a wealth of evidence and funded the original clinical trial that demonstrated an already FDA approved drug was a highly effective treatment for COVID-19 but was stonewalled in receiving an EUA from the FDA (which Kirsch was told from an insider also sabotaged Fluvoxamine making it into the NIH’s COVID treatment guidelines).medicine

health care


Guideline Committees

One of the classic tactics propagandists and marketers use to manipulate the public is to have an “independent” party (especially a trustable one) endorse the sponsor’s position. Because of this, you frequently find that a variety of nice sounding third parties (e.g., many of those which advocate for helping patients with specific medical conditions) are taking money from corporate sponsors and ultimately advance positions that to serve their sponsor’s interests.

A common way this technique is utilized is by delegating important policy decisions to impartial committees of qualified experts. That way, the conclusions they come to are perceived to be objective truth, rather than the work of a corrupt bureaucrat — even though in reality the corrupt bureaucrat calls the shots by deciding who ends up on the committee.

For example, in COVID-19, much of the death that happened was the result of no effective treatments existing for COVID-19, and instead only dangerous ones like remdesivir being permitted — which seems odd given that the evidence for remdesivir was appalling, whereas the evidence for many of the other treatments was phenomenal.

Let’s in turn consider the evidence and cost of each approved treatment for COVID-19 (the EUA list can be found here, the NIH treatment guidelines here).

pooled effects

Note: A few newer (and expensive) currently approved treatments for COVID-19 are not included in the above list. Many of the discontinued therapies were the monoclonal antibodies (which effectively treated COVID-19). The FDA discontinued them because they no longer matched the circulating variants of COVID-19 — yet simultaneously this decision was not applied to the vaccines.

I feel this decision was a shame since numerous people reported those monoclonals (which matched the vaccine spike protein) often were very helpful in treating vaccine injuries, but after the EUA was withdrawn, the entire supply was disposed of (minus a bit like what my colleague intercepted when this happened).

From looking at this list, it seems clear the primary determinant of if a treatment ended up in the guidelines was if it did not treat the infection (instead only providing symptomatic management — which was often dangerous) or if it was a lucrative product someone was making money off of. In short, our regulators appeared to be focused on protecting the market rather than the American people.

Interestingly, when the NIH committee which created the COVID-19 treatment guidelines was looked into, it was discovered that most of them had taken money from Gilead (remdesivir’s manufacturer). Furthermore, example this article discusses how Fauci chose to appoint one of his longtime associates (pictured below) to chair that committee.

fauci longtime associates

Note: According to a recent government investigation, the NIH spent approximately 162 million dollars developing remdesivir.

Likewise, the official Fauci appointed to chair the committee which monitored the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines while they were being tested was a board member of Gilead and numerous members of the FDA committee which horrendously voted to approve the vaccine for children had previously worked for Pfizer.

Note: The best argument I have seen in defense of the government hiring experts who are taking money from the company whose drug they are evaluating is that so many experts are being paid off now it’s extremely challenging to find academically qualified individuals for these committees who do not also have significant conflicts of interest.

This is one illustration of how the pervasive corruption in academia (which increases as funds become in short supply) has rippled out into the broader society.

Sadly, COVID was not the first time a corrupt committee’s guidelines have had massive consequences for the world. Consider this example from chapter 7 of Doctoring Data:

“The National Cholesterol Education Programme (NCEP) has been tasked by the NIH to develop guidelines [everyone uses] for treating cholesterol levels. Excluding the chair (who was by law prohibited from having financial conflicts of interest), the other 8 members on average were on the payroll of 6 statin manufacturers.

In 2004, NCEP reviewed 5 large statin trials and recommended: “Aggressive LDL lowering for high-risk patients [primary prevention] with lifestyle changes and statins.”

In 2005 a Canadian division of the Cochrane Collaboration [who were not paid off] reviewed 5 large statin trials (3 were the same as NCEP’s, while the other 2 had also reached a positive conclusion for statin therapy). That assessment instead concluded: “Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.””

Note: Statins are widely considered to be one of the most dangerous and ineffective drugs on the market.

When deciding on approving a new drug, the FDA seeks the advice of an outside advisory panel about half of the time (typically for more controversial or less understood drugs).

In those cases, the FDA is more likely than not to agree with that panel — one study evaluating 416 decisions made between 1997 and 2012 found the FDA followed the advice of its panel 84% of the time, and when the FDA overruled its panel, 61% of those decisions were to have a drug rejected by the committee nonetheless be approved. Some of the more noteworthy recent over-rulings included:

Approving an extremely expensive Alzheimer’s drug which did not work but did frequently cause brain bleeding and swelling (which could be fatal). That drug was unanimously rejected by the advisory committee, and when the FDA still chose to approve it, three members of that panel permanently resigned from their advisory capacity.

A CDC advisory panel voted in favor of giving the booster six months after the second shot to those over 65, and for those with health factors that put them at risk for a severe COVID-19 infection, but against recommending it to workers who were more likely to come in contact with COVID.

The CDC overruled that final decision and advised it for everyone (which in turn resulted in it being mandated for much of the American population since many use the CDC’s “voluntary” guidelines to craft their policies).

Note: Around the same time the CDC overruled its committee, the FDA also overruled its advisory committee’s decision to not approve boosters for the general population which coincided with the resignation of two senior FDA officials in its vaccine division — one of whom joined a vaccine non-profit and the other who became a board member for a biotech company.

Royalty Payments

In 1980, the Bayh–Dole Act was passed, which gave researchers (whose research was funded by taxpayer money) and their universities the patent and royalty rights to any drug they developed. The act was intended to help facilitate discoveries making it to the marketplace (which was a valid point since things moved very slowly when the Federal Government retained control of those patents), but at the time many worried it would corrupt the national research apparatus.

Not long after, as detailed within Chapter 7 of The Real Anthony Fauci, Fauci entered the scene and began transforming our national research apparatus into a pharmaceutical production pipeline. For example to quote a 2021 interview with RFK Jr:

“Between 2009 and 2016, there were hundreds of drugs approved by FDA. Virtually all of them came out of [Fauci’s NIH pharmaceutical production pipeline].”

Note: RFK Jr. recently estimated that Fauci’s agency owns 2,200 drug patents, many of which have been lucratively licensed to pharmaceutical manufacturers. Similar conflicts of interest also exist for the NIH and CDC (which may help to explain why the CDC always recommends every vaccine).

This transformation was greatly accelerated by Fauci’s maneuvers during the AIDS crisis (creating a hysteria about the disease, blocking all effective treatments for it from coming to market and making the deadly AZT be approved and then become the standard of care) which allowed him to get his agency, the NIAID, a massive discretionary budget, a global influence over scientific research and international health policy, and a large influence over the FDA and CDC.

In effect, Fauci gained control over the national research apparatus (which amongst other things was why he was able to destroy the careers of scientists like Peter Duesberg who challenged him as he could cut off their access to the grants every career scientist depends upon and make many reluctant to hire those who had crossed him). To create his pipeline Fauci did the following:

  • He assembled a network of clinical investigators (PIs) around the country who would test these drugs, often in a highly unethical manner.
  • He concealed the financial conflicts of interest from the trial participants (who likely would not have consented if they’d known they were guinea pigs for an investment).
  • He worked diligently to conceal the money everyone was making from the royalties on those drugs.
  • He used the money this pipeline brought in from the pharmaceutical industry to gradually buy out our regulators so they would push along his dangerous and unproven drugs.

Note: Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady is the nation’s chief bioethicist. Throughout her tenure, she has used her position to successfully lobby for Fauci’s policies (e.g., all of horrendous ones we saw throughout COVID-19) to be deemed “ethical.”

In short, Fauci made the Bayh–Dole Act become something far worse than its harshest critics had imagined. To quote Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor who has runs a non-profit directed at investigating unethical human experimentation and spent years investigating the NIAID’s conduct:

“Beginning around 1990, clinical trials became the profit center for the medical community. The insurance industry and HMOs were squeezing doctors so that it became hard to make big money practicing medicine. The most ambitious doctors left patient care and gravitated toward clinical trials.

Everybody involved was making money except the subjects of the human experiments. At the center of everything was NIH and NIAID. While people were not paying attention, the agency quietly became the partner of the industry.”

RFK Jr. aptly summarizes the immense scope of Fauci’s enterprise:

Between 2010 and 2016, every single drug that won approval from the FDA — 210 different pharmaceuticals — originated, at least in part, from research funded by the NIH.

At the time all of this happened, the pharmaceutical industry had far less control over the media as it was only in 1997 that directly advertising pharmaceutical products became legal in the United States.

This resulted in an ever increasing amount of advertising dollars coming from the pharmaceutical industry which in turn allowed the industry to be able to leverage media companies into never airing content critical of the industry — best illustrated by the fact in 1976, a far less dangerous (but still dangerous) experimental vaccine was recklessly deployed on America and after a significant number of people were injured, candid admissions of this were seen on mainstream news networks, something which is not allowed in today’s much more corrupt media climate.

Note: Outside of the United States, direct pharmaceutical advertising remains illegal in most countries (New Zealand is the only other country that fully allows it — while Canada partially allows it).

As a result, in the past, the press was much more willing to criticize Fauci’s conduct. For example, this is what the BBC’s investigator from it’s 2004 “Guinea Pig Kids” documentary shared about one of Fauci’s experiments which forced many of the participants to take the medications against their consent:

“I found the mass grave at Gate of Heaven cemetery in Hawthorne, New York, I couldn’t believe my eyes. It was a very large pit with AstroTurf thrown over it, which you could actually lift up. Under it one could see dozens of plain wooden coffins, haphazardly stacked. There may have been 100 of them. I learned there was more than one child’s body in each.

Around the pit was a semi-circle of several large tombstones on which upward of one thousand children’s names had been engraved. I wrote down every name. I’m still wondering who the rest of those kids were. As far as I know, nobody has ever asked Dr. Fauci that haunting question.

I remember the teddy bears and hearts in piles around the pit and I recall the flies buzzing around. The job of recording all those names took all day. NIAID, New York, and all the hospital PIs were stonewalling us.

We couldn’t get any accurate estimate of the number of children who died in the NIAID experiments, or who they were. I went to check the gravestone names against death certificates at the NYC Department of Health, which you could still do at that time.

BBC wanted to match these coffins to the names of children who were known to have been at ICC. It was a very slow, byzantine project with tremendous institutional resistance, but we did turn up a few names.

This story ran in the NY Post, believe it or not. But one after the other, every media outlet that touched this story got cold feet. Even then, the medical cartel had this power to kill this kind of story. Dr. Fauci has built his career on that attitude. Nobody even asks him a follow- up question.

NIAID’s narrative, at that time, was that these children were among the doomed as they ‘had AIDS,’ so supposedly they were all going to die anyway. When people died, in large numbers, gruesome deaths, NIAID’s medical researchers called it ‘lessons learned.’”

Note: Another lucrative HIV drug, Nevirapine was pushed through by Fauci and his AIDS branch DAIDS. When it was unethically tested in Africa on mothers and their children to prevent HIV transmission, thousands of adverse events occurred (including dozens of deaths), which Fauci hid from the FDA.

Later when similar injuries occurred within the United States, Jonathan Fishbein, MD (who in 2003 was hired to oversee DAIDS’s research) tried to bring attention to these serious research violations. This resulted in Fauci firing Fishbein from DAIDS, and after a lengthy whistleblower investigation was conducted by Congress, it instituted an annual cap of 150,000 dollars on the royalties each government scientist could receive each year for the drugs they helped developed.

In addition to the BBC, other media companies were also willing to criticize Fauci. For example:

“According to a 2005 exposé by the Associated Press, “In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government.” That investigation concluded that scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health flagrantly disregard ethical and legal requirements of financial disclosure.

Five years ago Donna Shalala, then Secretary of the Health and Human Services, issued federal requirements (2000) of financial disclosure requiring NIH scientists to disclose their financial interest in experimental treatments on informed consent documents reviewed by patients being recruited as test subjects.

According to the Associated Press, NIH administrators did not even consider implementing the 5 year old federal requirement until AP filed a Freedom of Information request last week.”

Note: Between 1997 to 2005, Fauci and his deputy H. Clifford Lane (another of the chairs of the COVID-19 treatment committee) had each received $45,072.82 in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented and spent a lot of tax payer money testing (e.g., $36 million on one experiment), often in an unethical fashion (e.g., they repeatedly failed to disclose their conflicts of interest to trial participants).

Sadly, by the time COVID happened, the pharmaceutical production pipeline was so well established that dissenting narratives simply could not see the light of day. Because of this, Fauci continually received fawning admiration throughout the (pharmaceutically sponsored) media — the most depressing of which was probably this segment:

More importantly, Fauci was never called out on his lies, his responsibility for creating COVID-19 or the innumerable ways he contradicted himself throughout the pandemic. Rather, he was allowed to direct the pandemic response through non-sensical proclamations that only benefitted his sponsors.

Because of the embarrassment that was created through the 2005 AP investigation, the NIH pledged to become more transparent with royalty payments and disclose financial conflicts of interest for patients recruited into their trials. In 2021, almost twenty years later, the watchdog organization Open the Books (with the help of Judicial Watch) attempted to replicate the AP’s FOIA investigation.

They found not surprisingly, the NIH had failed to uphold its commitment and instead had become much more secretive about its activity since 2005 (e.g., in addition to not voluntarily disclosing the pharmaceutical payments, it refused to honor legally required FOIA requests). Although much was concealed they eventually found:

1.Over 56,000 royalty payments (from third parties) totaling over 325 million dollars were paid to 2400 NIH scientists.

2.Many of these payments came from foreign companies (e.g., a questionable Russian company and a Chinese company that worked closely with the Wuhan lab) or vaccine companies (e.g., for the disastrous HPV vaccine).

3.Some of the royalty payment recipients had also received massive grants from the NIH.

4.Many of the parties paying the royalty payments had also received much larger grants from the NIH (for context the NIH gave out 30 billion dollars in grants in 2022).

5.The most prominent figures in the NIH (who decided where those grants were directed) also received a disproportionately higher number of royalty payments. For example:

  • Fauci received 37 payments between 2010-2021
  • Francis Collins (the NIH director between 2009-2021) received 21 payments between 2010-2021
  • Fauci’s deputy Clifford Lane received 8 payments
  • Douglas Lowy who has occupied various leadership roles at the National Cancer Institute (e.g., he’s been the acting director since 2015) received 192 payments since 2009

Unfortunately, the NIH has still refused to disclose exactly how much each of their employees has received from the royalty payments.

Fortunately, with the help of Congress, Adam Andrzejewski was eventually able to obtain Fauci’s financial disclosures and discover how much he and his wife made during the pandemic response (which Fauci’s recently released calendar shows he was directing behind the scenes with all the key players long before COVID-19 was officially acknowledged):

fauci household net worth tracker

Note: Fauci is the highest paid federal employee, while is wife is one of the highest (she makes more than the vice president). He is also presently slated to receive a retirement pension of over $350,000.00 a year — which is also the largest federal pension in history.

Sadly, this excellent journalism resulted in Andrzejewski (who had previously earned the position of a senior policy contributor) being fired by Forbes — which again shows how much influence the pharmaceutical industry has over the media.

The GAO Investigation

One of the more honest departments within the Federal Government is the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an agency that serves as Congress’s watchdog and frequently uncovers other branches of the government deliberately concealing their misdeeds (e.g., this occurred when the GAO was assigned to investigate the military’s disastrous experimental anthrax vaccination program).

As part of the COVID-19 relief bills, the GAO was assigned to investigate the four agencies directly responsible for crafting the COVID-19 response (the FDA, CDC, NIH and ASPR) and attempted to answer a relatively simple question. Did political interference prevent employees within those departments from following policies in accordance with the existing scientific evidence?

After conducting interviews with employees in each agency, the GAO found many had observed this happen and a few at the CDC and FDA went further to state that: “they felt that the potential political interference they observed resulted in the alteration or suppression of scientific findings.”

When the GAO asked why the federal employees failed to report these actions, they cited the following reasons:

  • They feared retaliation.
  • They thought their leadership was already aware of those issues.
  • They were unsure how to report issues as no existing policies or procedures existed for making those reports.
elements of scientific integrity related procedures and training

Note: Not having procedures in place to report misconduct is unusual as most large organizations have them and they are often required by the government to (e.g., medicare requires all hospitals receiving its payments to have a way for employees to report fraud).

When the GAO asked the leadership of those agencies why these necessary policies and procedures were not in place, the only explanation they received was that no reports of political interference had been made so there was no need to have a formalized reporting system for it.

In turn, I would argue this line of reasoning is not that different from the agencies habitually refusing to honor their promises to be transparent with the bribes they are receiving from the pharmaceutical industry.

For example, did you know that Moderna’s vaccine was developed by NIH scientists and that the NIH spent 1.4 billion dollars to help Moderna develop and test its vaccine?

Once I learned this I was relatively sure the vaccine would be approved by the FDA regardless of the red flags that emerged — and despite all the issues that have come to light since that time (along with the fact the vaccine barely works now) those agencies are still trying to push booster after booster for it onto the market.

In my eyes, one of the most important takeaways from the GAO’s investigation is that there are a lot of good people in these agencies who want to do the right thing, but they are often prevented from doing so because corrupt officials have been appointed to lead these agencies — something which RFK Jr. has also repeatedly found to be the case in his years of litigating against the federal government and the sentiment echoed by many of the personnel in these agencies (e.g., the previously mentioned CDC employees).


One of the most common strategies power hungry individuals use to control the masses is to rigidly establish pyramidal hierarchies within the society and then take control of the very top of each of those institutions.

For example, the premier medical journals have been established as the arbiters of “scientific truth,” and as the years have gone by, they’ve marched more and more in lockstep with Big Pharma — so as you might guess both the journals themselves and their editors receive a lot of money from the pharmaceutical industry.

This helps to explain why all of them (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) refused to publish anything critical of the COVID vaccines or remdesivir. Likewise, as Pierre Kory details within the War on Ivermectin, they refused to publish all the data showing affordable off-patent drugs worked much better than any of the lucrative products being rushed out for the COVID boondoggle.

In this article, I’ve attempted to show how there has been an increasing tide of corruption within the agencies we have long trusted to look out for our health. This corruption has now metastasized to the point we saw entire government march in lockstep throughout the pandemic in support of the irrational, unscientific and disastrous policies that were implemented throughout COVID-19. In many ways, I feel like we are well on the path to this scene from the iconic movie Idiocracy:

As much as I’d like to blame the government for the disaster we are witnessing, I think much of it is also a reflection of the culture. For example, Big Pharma and the medical device industry spends a lot of money grooming doctors (now about 20 billion a year) — including over 2500 doctors who’ve received more than half a million dollars from the industry and 700 who’ve received over a million. Remember, that money is only spent because it works.

All of this I believe is representative of a cycle societies throughout history have been observed to follow:

cycle societies

Many factors in turn account for the cyclical nature of things; for example, as the times change, the society’s institutions are no longer suited to meet the needs of current era.

Likewise, when everything works well, citizens often take that for granted and lose the motivation to actively participate in making the society work, which allows the rot in the society’s institutions to fester, whereas once things become bad enough, they become motivated to become active participants in turning things around.

One of the major factors that goes hand in hand with this cycle is the level of corruption, as once it passes a certain point, the institutions society depends upon prioritize serving whoever is bribing them rather than the society — which rapidly leads to things falling apart. As I have tried to illustrate in this article, we are presently in a period of institutional breakdown which has gone hand in hand with the ever-growing corruption throughout our society.

At this point, there are now more and more indications the egregiousness of that corruption (especially given how far things went throughout COVID-19), has now begun to open the public’s eyes to the pervasive corruption within our society and that it’s reached the point it is now threatening the stability of the United States.

In turn, my hope is that this recognition will create the political will to halt the institutional decline our nation is facing — because if it doesn’t, the decline will continue worsen (history has countless examples of the innumerable atrocious things which occur during major institutional declines) and we will likely experience an even greater shock than what was seen during the pandemic.

They Will Take Your House _And that is the Green Agenda???

Why a Global Government Is the Ultimate Goal of Billionaires


  • The European Union’s “Energy Performance of Buildings Directive” — the legislative instrument that dictates the energy performance standards for buildings within the EU — will be used to achieve a massive wealth transfer scheme
  • By 2030, the EU must meet a minimum 55% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, they want every building — commercial, public and residential — in the EU to meet zero-emission standards. To achieve that, they will impose a slew of new renewal energy requirements on homeowners
  • For example, heating systems that use fossil fuels are to be completely phased out of existence by 2035. Homeowners will be required to install new “green,” presumably electric, heating systems — and pay for it out of pocket. The cost for these new energy requirements are estimated to be around 100,000 euros for a residential house
  • The goal is to force people out of their homes. If you cannot afford the required upgrades, you’ll be forced to sell your home. Asset management companies will then buy them and turn them into rentals
  • September 20, 2023, the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) president approved a declaration on pandemic prevention, which assigns pandemic authority to the WHO, without a full assembly vote and over the objections of 11 member states. The objections should have prevented a consensus adoption the declaration, but the U.N. is skirting the rules by having the UNGA president, rather than the General Assembly, approve the declaration

In the video above, Bjorn Andreas Bull-Hansen, a best-selling Norwegian novelist, explains how the European Union’s “Energy Performance of Buildings Directive” — the legislative instrument that dictates the energy performance standards for buildings within the EU — will be used to achieve a massive wealth transfer scheme.

In March 2023, the EU Parliament voted to revise this directive as part of a “Fit for 55” package, which aims to meet a minimum 55% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

By 2050, the EU intends to achieve a “zero-emission and fully decarbonized building stock.”1 In short, by 2050, they want every building — commercial, public and residential — in the EU to meet zero-emission standards. To achieve that, they will impose a slew of new requirements on homeowners.

For example, heating systems that use fossil fuels are to be completely phased out of existence by 2035,2 if the European Parliament gets its way, and that means homeowners will be required to install new “green,” presumably electric, heating systems — and pay for it out of pocket. According to Bull-Hansen, the cost for these new energy requirements is estimated to be around 100,000 euros for a residential house.

The Goal Really Is for You to Own Nothing

The goal, Bull-Hansen, explains, is to force people out of their homes. If you cannot afford the required upgrades, you’ll be forced to sell your home, and asset management companies like BlackRock and Vanguard will stand at the ready to snatch these properties up.

And that’s if you’ll be allowed to sell a house that isn’t up to standards; the government might just deem it unsellable and seize it, or you may have to pay a fine of some sort.

In the U.S., BlackRock and Vanguard started bulk-buying residential homes in earnest in early 2021, which they then rent out rather than resell, thereby eroding middle class homeownership. They also artificially drove up home prices by paying above-asking price, thereby pushing homeownership further out of reach.

Of course, the price of rent has also skyrocketed, and renters will have to pay even more after these energy upgrades. So, not only is homeownership something many young people can no longer achieve, many can’t even afford to rent, and are forced to live with their parents or multiple roommates. We can eventually expect the number of homeless to skyrocket as well.

As noted by Bull-Hansen, the elimination of personal property ownership is all part of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Great Reset agenda, Agenda 2030 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. These are just different names for the same overarching plan.

The WEF’s “8 Predictions for the World in 2030” video,3 in which they cheerfully declared that by 2030 “you will own nothing,” spelled out many of the aspects of this global plan, including the goal to eliminate personal ownership rights. “All products will become services,” the WEF explains on its website.4 That’s what “you’ll own nothing” refers to.

Gone will be the days when you buy something once and can use it indefinitely because you own it. Instead, the new system they’re pushing us into will require you to rent everything — your home, transportation, furniture, pots and pans and all the rest. You’ve probably noticed this creep already.

For example, you used to be able to buy a piece of software, which came on a disc. You could install and reinstall that program on any computer you wanted, because you had the CD.

Today, most software programs are cloud-based subscriptions, and you have to pay a monthly or annual fee for as long as you’re using it. And, while the fee may be low, once you add it up over a lifetime of use, you’ll end up paying many times more than what you did when you were able to buy it outright.

Homeownership Has Always Been a Wealth-Building Strategy

As noted by Bull-Hansen, homeownership defines the middle class. More importantly, it’s been a way to build and secure generational wealth for ages. Remove the ability for people to buy their own home, and you effectively eliminate the middle class, leaving just the very rich, and the very poor.

“It doesn’t matter if you believe this will be good for the environment or not,” Bull-Hansen says. “This is about controlling you. This is about owning you … This is a wealth transfer that we’re looking at, and we can’t accept that. Ownership is important. It’s a very, very essential concept …

If you take ownership away, what you’re left with is feudalism. Someone’s going to own the stuff that you need, and they will be the so-called ‘elites’ … So we must put our foot down and refuse to accept this.”

Disobedience Is Our Only Way Out

OK, so what do we do about it? I second Bull-Hansen’s call for peaceful disobedience. “We MUST be disobedient now,” he says. The alternative is to accept serfdom.

And again, the coming slave system is not merely about removing human rights and eliminating the freedoms we’ve enjoyed our whole lives — even simple things, such as having the freedom to travel wherever you choose, whenever you want — it’s also about stripping us of our wealth and eliminating the possibility of building wealth in the future.

They’re not just trying to take away your ability to own a home and build generational wealth that way. With a central bank digital currency (CBDC), you won’t make interest on your money, and they’ll take taxes out automatically. They’ll also have the ability to dictate where and what you can spend your money on, and put expiration dates on your funds so that you can never save up for a rainy day.

The globalist cabal behind this entire agenda intends to create a permanent slave class that has no rights, no freedoms and no way out.

If you go along with these “green” proposals — which is what they’re using to justify this particular wealth transfer scheme — then you are actively choosing poverty and slavery for yourself, your children and all descendants thereafter, because dismantling this global system of control will be unimaginably difficult once it’s in place.

How are you going to rebel when the government can seize your bank accounts at will, lock you out of grocery stores, send you to an infectious control internment camp to “protect public health” even though you’re not sick, program your electric vehicle such that it only runs within a specific designated area, and punish everyone you know in the same way, simply because they know you?

All of that, and much more, will be possible once the AI-run digital surveillance and control grid is fully implemented and linked to your digital identity, a programmable CBDC and the unified ledger system.

As noted by Bull-Hansen, there will be ramifications for disobedience and refusal to go along with the globalist “green” agenda, but if we agree to pay the price now, and refuse en masse, this globalist power grab will absolutely fail. They cannot do it without mass obedience.

Who’s Looking to Rule the World?

If this topic is new to you, you might be wondering who these “globalists” are that are trying to effect this global coup. I’m not going to name names here, although it’s getting easier by the day to identify the individuals who are part of the club by examining their public statements and stances, their business endeavors and affiliations.

The reason for this is because most are no longer even trying to hide their involvement, and the organizations erected to drive the agenda forward are becoming more and more open about their goals.

For example, June 5, 2023, the United Nations published a document spelling out its commitment to make the World Health Organization the central global governance body.

The following excerpt is from page 9 of the Zero Draft of the “Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response” document drafted in advance of the September 20, 2023, General Assembly meeting.5

global governance

The final text6 of this document was published September 1, 2023, and in that version, all of the headings have been removed, but the overall intent to make the WHO a de facto governing body for the world remains unchanged.

While the document focuses on the WHO’s authority to dictate pandemic prevention and response worldwide, as I’ve detailed in several previous articles, the WHO will not only be in charge of pandemics. That’s just the justification they use to get its foot in the door.

Next, the WHO will move into general health care by advancing the acceptance of a universal health care system. This will be promoted under the banner of enhancing pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, as detailed on page 11 under OP33 in the Zero Draft,7 and under article 22 in the final text.8

Then, through the global One Health program, which expands “public health” to include everything from agriculture and pollution to travel and climate change, the WHO — or some spinoff thereof — will take over all government functions.

The final text of the UN’s “Political Declaration” even declares that health is an indicator of “sustainable development,” thereby directly linking the WHO’s pandemic authority to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030.

one health

Lawlessness Reigns

Making matters all the more dire for the people of the world is the fact that governments and global organizations involved in this power grab are increasingly flouting rules, guidelines, laws and treaties that previously have ensured at least some semblance of democracy and rule of law.

One of the latest examples of this is the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) president’s approval of the declaration on pandemic prevention (the document discussed above) without a full assembly vote and over the objections of 11 member states (Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela and Zimbabwe).

According to Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the objections by 11 nations should “prevent this declaration being adopted by consensus and thus arguably becoming part of customary international law, which is what those behind the declaration intend.”

“They could not get it through the UNGA as a Consensus Resolution because of the 11 objecting states,” Boyle told The Defender.9 “They are trying to spin it and misrepresent it by having the UNGA president — not the UNGA — approve the declaration.”

UN Declaration Calls for Universal Vaccinations and More

The fact that the UN General Assembly president is creating loopholes where there are none is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that the declaration makes the COVID-19 power grabs permanent and calls for universal vaccination, increased surveillance, vaccine passports, social media censorship, and an “integrated One Health approach,” which I just explained is the primary way by which the WHO will end up governing all aspects of human life.

So, we can see that even when countries disagree and push back, U.N. leadership simply skirts the rules and follows the Deep State plan anyway, and that’s precisely the kind of behavior we can expect from a “One World Government.” They’ll have rules for themselves, which they’ll conveniently ignore when it suits them, and fixed rules with harsh penalties for the rest of the plebs. As reported by The Defender, September 20, 2023:10

“Critics called the declaration, which seeks to create a global pandemic authority with the power to enforce lockdowns, universal vaccination and censorship of ‘misinformation,’ ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘unhinged.’ The approval came as part of a high-level meeting on PPPR [Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response] …

In a statement, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, ‘If COVID-19 taught us nothing else, it’s that when health is at risk, everything is at risk.’ He linked the PPPR to the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), saying world leaders should ‘show they have learned the painful lessons of the pandemic’ …

Writing for the Brownstone Institute, Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, said ‘the main aim’ of the declaration ‘is to back’ the ‘pandemic treaty’ and IHR amendments currently under negotiation by WHO member states.

Bell said a ‘silence procedure’ is in place, ‘meaning that States not responding will be deemed supporters of the text.’ He said the text is ‘clearly contradictory, sometimes fallacious, and often quite meaningless,’ and intended to centralize the WHO’s power.

Bell told The Defender, ‘The declaration was not written with serious intent, but is essentially empty rhetoric promoting a continued centralization of control that the U.N. and WHO are openly seeking, at the expense of democracy, human rights and equality.’

Francis Boyle … agreed … ‘This is a full-court press to have the entirety of the United Nations Organization, its specialized agencies and its affiliated organizations, back up and support their proposed globalist WHO worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state,’ he said.”

Why Does the Deep State Reveal Its Plans?

In recent years, the last three in particular, the Deep State global mafia has gotten more and more open about its plans. That said, even decades ago, the plan for a “New World Order,” a “One World Government,” was there for anyone to see. They discussed it in published white papers and reports, they hinted at it in movies and entertainment, they divulged it in tabletop exercises.

Why do they always reveal their plan? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to keep it a secret so that people don’t know what’s coming and therefore won’t put up a fight?

As it turns out, there’s a method to the apparent madness, and the video above, “Revealing the Method: Esoteric Symbolism as Mind Control,” explains it. In summary, the agenda for a global governance system uses mass mind control to condition people to loss of personal power by promoting and getting us used to three types of loss:

  1. Loss of memory (amnesia)
  2. Loss of will or initiative (abulia)
  3. Loss of interest in that which is vital to one’s health and well-being (apathy)

These three psychological conditions are required for the global cabal to successfully implement a global government. Mind control methods used by the cabal to promote these conditions include the subversion of sacred symbolism and archetypes.

With the use of occult and esoteric symbols, they appeal to mankind’s lower instincts, animalistic appetites, compulsive urges and “inharmonious drives that conflict with an individual’s higher conscious nature.” The goal is to arrest the spiritual development of individuals and stifle the evolution of spirit within society.

Putting their “mark” on everything they do may also be an ego-driven facet of the cabal’s megalomania. It proclaims their dominance to each other and, subconsciously, to the masses, while simultaneously mocking those they view as inferior.

One particularly interesting aspect of the cabal’s use of symbolism is that the symbol typically means the exact opposite of the mainstream consensus view of its meaning. For example, the hammer and sickle symbol, found on the flag of the former Soviet Union, is commonly thought to represent the tools of the working class — industry and agriculture. The idea is that of a “working class utopia.”

The occult meaning, however, which predates the Soviet Union, is that of Saturn, a demi-urge who used a sickle to sever the unity of earth and heaven. Having separated earth from the divine, Saturn became the architect of the material world. In emulation of Saturn, the cabal is also engrossed with matters of the material world: owning it, shaping it, controlling it.

The hammer, meanwhile, represents the obliteration of matter — “The final act of chaotic destruction to usher in their new order.” It’s the instrument that shatters the last remnants of divine will within mankind “in a process in which man devolves and descends further into a post-human world.”

The hammer and sickle, then, seen from an occult perspective, denotes the tyrannical rule of an elite class intent on separating mankind from the divine and, ultimately, destroying it. Its occult meaning is that of a divided dystopia — the opposite of a unified utopia.

I recommend viewing the video, which goes into much greater detail than this short summary. If nothing else, it’s food for thought.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/10/06/global-government-goal-of-billionaires.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20231006&foDate=true&mid=DM1473657&rid=1930784015

More on Election Fraud — In Arizona

Court Finds Arizona’s Signature Matching Process Unlawful in ‘Massive Win’ for Election Integrity

Former candidate for governor of Arizona, Kari Lake
Don’t bother to search for this article on Google. When Kari Lake contested the 2022 election results against Katie Hobbs in their race of Arizona governor, she was excoriated over claims that mail-in ballots were handled illegally. Now an Arizona judge has ruled that the “statute is clear and unambiguous”. While Lake’s legal fight continues, this is the crack in the dyke of election fraud.When dust settles on this, it will expose the all dirty, underhanded things that were done to steal thin election in the first place. ⁃ TN Editor

A judge has found that Arizona’s signature matching process for mail-in ballots is unlawful, delivering what the plaintiffs in the lawsuit called a “massive win” for election integrity.

Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper issued a ruling last week (pdf) in a lawsuit against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes brought by public interest group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), which alleged that Mr. Fontes broke the law regarding mail-in ballot signature verification procedures.

Specifically, the group argued that Mr. Fontes’ interpretation of “registration record” in the Secretary of State’s Elections Procedures Manual was unreasonably broad and improperly expanded the pool of signatures to which an early ballot affidavit signature could be compared, increasing the risk of false positives.

“While state law requires county recorders to match mail-ballot signatures with signatures in the voter’s ‘registration record,’ the Secretary instructed them to use a broader and less reliable universe of comparison signatures,” RITE said in a Sept. 5 statement on the court ruling.

“That means the Secretary was requiring ballots to be counted despite using a signature that did not match anything in the voter’s registration record. This was a clear violation of state law,” the group added.

Former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who sued Mr. Fontes and Maricopa County officials over the signature verification process that was used in last year’s election, took to X to post about the decision.

“A court just found that Arizona’s signature matching process is UNLAWFUL,” Ms. Lake said.

“This is what happens when you don’t back down from a fight,” the Kari Lake War Room account said in a post on X.

Mr. Fontes’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

Dispute Over ‘Registration Record’

Court documents show that Mr. Fontes argued that the legal definition of “registration record” is ambiguous and so he is entitled to provide guidance on its interpretation.

“Does the legislature’s use of the expansive term registration ‘record’ really mean the more restrictive (but unused) term registration ‘form’ for purposes of verifying a signature on an early voted ballot,” reads a motion to dismiss (pdf) the RITE lawsuit filed by Mr. Fontes’ attorneys.

“The answer is ‘no,’” the attorneys argued, listing reasons that include the Secretary of State’s statutory authority to conduct elections fairly and impartially.

But the judge disagreed with the reasoning.

“This argument fails because there is no ambiguity in the statute,” Mr. Napper wrote in his opinion.

He added that the Arizona “statute is clear and unambiguous” in that it requires the recorder to “review the voter’s registration card” and not other documents bearing the voter’s signature.

Mr. Napper also noted that Mr. Fontes’ signature-matching process in the Election Procedures Manual “contradicts the plain language” of Arizona elections laws by allowing signature matching with documents that have “nothing to do with the act of registering.”

Accordingly, the judge denied Mr. Fontes’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

In a statement, Derek Lyons, CEO of RITE, called the decision a “huge victory toward securing the elections that Arizonans deserve, which are elections they can trust.”

“RITE will build on this victory to continue to fight in court for elections that are administered according to democratically enacted laws, not illegal partisan commands,” he added.

The group said in a statement that the ruling shows that Mr. Fontes must change his signature verification procedures before the next election to “protect the integrity of Arizona’s mail-in balloting process” or face further legal consequences.

It’s unclear whether the ruling will have any implications for Ms. Lake’s lawsuit against Mr. Fontes and Maricopa County officials over the signature verification process that was used in last year’s gubernatorial election.

A judge in May dismissed Ms. Lake’s lawsuit but she filed an appeal (pdf), which is ongoing before the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Read full story here…

from:  https://www.technocracy.news/court-finds-arizonas-signature-matching-process-unlawful-in-massive-win-for-election-integrity/


What’s Up With The World Health Organization

We’re in the Middle of a Global Coup — Here’s How We Stop It

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked


  • The World Health Organization’s upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments are part of a global “soft coup” to strip nations of their sovereignty and people of their bodily autonomy and freedom
  • The WHO wants to put into law a requirement that nations must censor their citizens, so that only public health messages aligned with the WHO’s recommendations can be shared
  • The IHR amendments specify that the WHO will dictate which drugs countries must use, and which they cannot, in the event of a pandemic — and possibly outside of pandemics as well
  • The IHRs have been in existence since 1969, but in the current draft of the IHR amendments — the WHO’s recommendations — become edicts that must be followed rather than recommendations that nations can ignore at will
  • The treaty demands the fast-tracking of vaccines, along with liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers. The EU, U.S. and CEPI have already proposed a plan to develop vaccines in 100 days
  • The treaty will apply to all nations that sign on, all the time, even when there are no pandemics

In this interview board-certified internist and biological warfare epidemiologist Dr. Meryl Nass discusses the dangers posed by the World Health Organization’s upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments. She also wrote about this in a recent article titled “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics.”1

“I’ve been reading the different drafts of the amendments and the Pandemic treaty that have been put forward,” she says. “They’re a mix of things, different ideas put forward by the different [member] countries. And then there’s a group within the WHO that tries to harmonize them, and also make sure that what the WHO wants is in them.

I had finally read through, line by line, the June 2nd, most recent draft of a pandemic treaty, and it had things that were much worse and more explicit in it than before, and I felt compelled to start writing about it.

Then, after I’d written a short piece, I realized it was too important and I needed to write a long piece with background and links, and try to get the message out to a lot of people.

Because the only reason these documents and the plan — the biosecurity agenda through the pandemic treaty and the International Health Amendments — have gotten as far as they have is because nobody has read them. [People] don’t understand what the plan is, and may not understand the backstory.”

Converging Agendas With Identical Goals

It’s important to realize that many different aspects of the grand plan are being put into motion by a variety of sectors and globalist organizations at the same time, and while they may appear independent of each other, they’re all leading us in the same direction, toward a unified goal, namely the enslavement of mankind and the centralization of control over the world’s population.

We have development of a new financial apparatus involving the rollout of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), for example.

“At the same time, the U.N. also wants into the action,” Nass says. “It wants to be able to declare global shocks and manage them. And those could be the ones that the WHO wants to manage, which is biological warfare and pandemics that occur in more than one country.

So, the U.N. has listed those two, but also all sorts of other potential global shocks, like climate change, supply chain interruptions, cyber events, and even events in outer space. And they finalize it with black swan events, which means anything the U.N. wants to designate as a global shock can be one, and then the U.N. will come out with its management of that event.

So, the secretary general of the U.N. is asking its members … at the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, to give it permission to create this global emergencies platform … which will give the secretary general and the U.N. authority to manage global shocks.

Also at that meeting, the WHO and the U.N. are coming together to try to divvy up how things are going to go for biological warfare and pandemics that affect more than one country. So, look for information coming out on that on September 20.”

Why Was the Pandemic Treaty Introduced?

The WHO proposed the initial plan to grant itself the power to issue global emergency instructions in 2021. The claim was that nations had handled the COVID pandemic so poorly, we need a centralized organization to manage the next pandemic better.

“Of course, it was laid out in terms of equity, like the rich countries didn’t give the poor countries enough vaccines, etc … and so many people died. What is never said is that, in fact, almost all the countries of the world were following the WHO’s guidance, and that is what caused this last pandemic to be so devastating.

The economic implications were all as a result of the lockdowns, the resulting supply chain interruptions, the closure of schools, etc. So, although the WHO wants this great power, it hasn’t said that it’s going to do anything differently.

Nobody at the level of the WHO, the U.N., or the United States public health authorities or the president has said they did anything wrong. What they want to do is more of the same, and I mean more, lots more,” Nass says

WHO Wants To Be a Centralized Ruler of All

For example, they want to put into law the requirement that nations must censor their citizens, so that only public health messages aligned with the WHO’s recommendations can be shared. Already, YouTube has announced they will henceforth censor all health information that does not conform to the WHO’s narrative. But that censorship is nothing compared to what’s to come.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) also specify that the WHO will dictate which drugs countries must use, and which they cannot, in the event of a pandemic — and possibly outside of pandemics as well. As explained by Nass:

“The pandemic treaty … is a completely new document, and each draft has been different than the one before. In the current draft, the director general of the WHO doesn’t even need to declare a pandemic. The pandemic treaty will be in effect all the time.”

The IHRs have been in existence since 1969, but in the current draft of the IHR amendments, the WHO’s recommendations become edicts that must be followed rather than recommendations that nations can ignore at will.

In their current form, the amendments do require the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) before he can start giving orders, but there are no standards for what a PHEIC is. It could be anything. He would also have the power to declare a “potential” pandemic, even with limited or no evidence.

All Vaccines Will Be Fast-Tracked and Untested

The treaty also demands the fast-tracking of vaccines, along with liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers. According to Nass, the EU, U.S. and CEPI have already proposed a plan to develop vaccines in 100 days and manufacture enough for everyone in the country in another 30 days.

“It’s a completely crazy idea because you don’t have time to test the vaccines in human beings if you’re developing them in 100 days,” Nass says. “The COVID vaccines were developed in 326 days … That was the Pfizer vaccine. And the median testing in humans was only two months or less.

We gave the vaccines to billions of people, and we only found out later what the side effects were. We still don’t have a totally clear view of all the side effects and how often they occur, because our countries have hidden the data …

Today, when FDA is letting things get through right and left without good tests, still only 29% of the vaccines presented to the FDA are given a license; 71% are rejected. It’s hard to make a good vaccine. Many have to be thrown away before you get to a safe and effective one.

That is, unless you have a complete waiver of liability, and then you can inject people with anything. And there are no manufacturing standards, no safety standard, no efficacy standard. The only ‘standard’ is that the FDA commissioner needs to hope that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Never-Ending Pandemics Ahead

Both the treaty and the IHR amendments require nations to perform extensive biosurveillance, year-round, and perform genomic sequencing on all pathogens collected. Well, if we’re testing people, livestock, wild animals, farms and factories all the time, we’ll always be able to find pathogens with pandemic potential.

So, this will give rise to a never-ending series of pandemic and “potential pandemic” declarations. Any and all of these declarations could then result in lockdowns and new vaccine requirements. And, importantly, these documents will supersede all domestic laws if implemented, so not even the U.S. Constitution will be able to save us.

Door To Freedom

To prevent this nightmare, Nass has founded a new organization called Door To Freedom (doortofreedom.org), which seeks to educate people around the world about what the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments are, and how they will change life as we know it, and strip us of every vestige of freedom.

Door To Freedom has created a poster to explain the impacts the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will have. Please download this poster and share it with everyone you know. Also put it up on public billboards and places where communities share information.

“The WHO appears to be nervous about the fact that some of these bits of information are in fact making it into the mainstream,” Nass says, “and so they themselves have made little short videos with Tedros and other people at the WHO denying that this is a sovereignty grab — claiming that the WHO is not even going to be a party of the treaty, etc.

Most of their claims are lies. So, it will be confusing. But the WHO is definitely a party to this treaty. The WHO intends — in the June 2, 2023, version, which is called the Bureau Draft — to take management of certain aspects of pandemic control.”

Who Will Vote on the Treaty and IHR Amendments?

The IHR amendments will only require a 50% vote of whoever is in the room at the time of the vote, which will take place at the World Health Assembly’s annual meeting in May 2024.2 Countries will then have only 10 months to send a formal opt-out to the WHO if the amendments pass. Barring an opt-out, all countries will then be required to comply with WHO directives.

Nations that have not officially opted out will then be bound by the new terms laid out in the amendments. The pandemic treaty will also be voted on during that meeting. It will require two-thirds vote in favor by the members that are in the room and will go into effect one month after 30 nations have ratified it. The amendments require an active opt-out, while the treaty requires an active opt-in.

Any nation that has not signed the treaty will be excluded from its terms. Those who sign the treaty must wait three years before they can get out.

“That’s important to remember, because I don’t think too many people want to give the WHO three years of directing them how to manage public health emergencies before they can can say no,” Nass says.

It is important to be aware that the treaty will be in force all the time. It won’t require a pandemic to give the WHO director-general the power to surveil and censor the entire world, 24/7. Furthermore, as currently drafted, the treaty has essentially blank pages, to be filled in later.

New committees will form, and they will determine how the treaty provisions will be carried out and enforced. They can add new provisions too. This is like giving a blank check to the WHO to impose whatever it wants on the world’s people.

Action Items

While the situation seems incredibly bleak, Nass insists there are many things we can do to prevent the WHO’s power grab, including the following:

Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act,3 introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO. At the time of this writing, it has 51 cosponsors, all of them Republicans. We cannot get this bill passed without Democrats, so we need to get them to understand what’s at stake. As noted by Nass:

“That means 51 congressmen have already been convinced about how bad this is. We the people have to get educated and then push it out to more members of Congress.

These provisions are so terrible, if you stand up in front of a room and say, ‘My congresswoman is voting to give away our sovereignty, to have the WHO take away our medications, to transfer our intellectual property to other nations,’ everyone will say ‘That person is terrible.’

So, there’s a lot of opportunity to embarrass your members of Congress if they don’t understand what this is and vote to get out. I think that’s our best bet.”

The Sovereignty Coalition is making it easier for everyone to make their voices heard. Its Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks. Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives.

Also urge your congressman or congresswoman to sponsor H.R.1425,4 which would require the pandemic treaty to be approved by the Senate. It currently has 27 cosponsors.

Call your senator and urge them to sponsor the Senate version of H.R.1425, which is S.444, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.5 It currently has 47 cosponsors.

Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster6 everywhere you can, and direct them to doortofreedom.org for more information.

Also share, share, share information about the IHR amendments and how they will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. You can find a quick summary here.

In 2021, the U.S. introduced several new amendments that were rejected by other nations, so when it came to a vote in 2022, the U.S. rescinded most of them.

If we can make enough noise and get a wellspring of people to push back, saying we will not accept these terms, many of the amendments may simply be withdrawn before they come to a vote in 2024.

The WHO is trying to achieve this soft coup on the sly, and exposing how these amendments will eliminate human rights and bodily autonomy, and strip our nation of its sovereignty, will force them to take a step back, because while they are tyrants, they don’t want to be identified as such.

We Must Stop the Funding of Our Demise

Also be sure to sign up for Door To Freedom’s newsletter so that you can take action when WHO-related bills come up. We need to oppose all funding of the global biosecurity agenda, and Door To Freedom will alert you when it’s time to call on your representatives to oppose funding measures that will further the biosecurity agenda.

Other newsletters that will help you stay abreast on this issue are Children’s Health Defense and Stand for Health Freedom.

The U.S. has already contributed money to a financial intermediary fund set up through the WHO and the World Bank. But that fund is still many billions short of what it wants, so the WHO is looking for member states to dramatically increase their contributions.

The U.S. also committed $5 billion over five years to the global biosecurity agenda when it passed the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2022. So, those contributions are now part of U.S. law, and they’re part of Biden’s proposed budget for 2024.

Another $20 billion in mandated spending by the Department of Health and Human Services has been requested in the president’s FY 2024 budget request to Congress for International Pandemic Preparedness. More money will also be allocated for this purpose by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Additional funds may also be allocated through the State Department, USAID, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In all, the U.S. is already set to spend some $30 billion a year on global pandemic preparedness, and part of that is for surveillance of our social media and the internet, and biosurveillance for pathogens with pandemic potential.

It seems that with so much money sloshing around, a large number of vested interests support the WHO plan. However, when we citizens reach out en masse, politicians oftentimes are compelled to appease their constituents, especially when it comes to turning over state and federal authority for health to unelected officials of the WHO, an organization well-known for corruption, which unabashedly caters to its biggest donors, particularly Bill Gates. A recent example is offered by Nass:

“There’s a group called the Sovereignty Coalition that we are part of. They have the ALIGN Act software and this enables people going to their website, with two or three clicks, to send needed messages to the president, your congressman, senators, governors, etc., and that was used.

So, when the funding bill came up a month or two ago for the State Department — and funding for the WHO is in that bill — the Republicans had cut funding in their markup, because … we got over 4,000 calls and emails to every member of the committee the night before.”

So, thanks to that outreach, the State Department Foreign Operations appropriations bill draft now has zero funding for the WHO in it. As noted by Nass:

“Now that is extraordinary. I’m sure they’re going to try to sneak it in somewhere else, but right now the United States has defunded the WHO in the pending legislation, which needs to be voted on, I believe by the end of October.

Stand for Health Freedom also has something like that, and Children’s Health Defense also has ALIGN Act software. So, we can make this happen. When bills are coming up, when important things are happening, we can get out the action alerts and get people to take action. That’s already in place. It’s tremendously important, and we’ll continue to do that.”

We Must Connect the Dots for People

A common question is who is responsible for this global coup? Also, who’s in charge of it? And why are they doing it, exactly?

“The answer is, we don’t know who’s doing it,” Nass says, “but we know there are some very evil, rich people that are [part of it]. We know that Klaus Schwab is part of their apparatus. We know that the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders —that Schwab has raised up for the last 30 years — are a big part of implementing these things in their countries …

They’re like a large Skull and Bones club where they work together. They come together for meetings, and their job is to elevate each other into powerful positions in industry and government … So, we have to make people aware of the role of these secret societies, and how they are being used to bring in bad programs.

People are already noticing the terrible inflation in the United States, and that’s due to the money printing. They had to do the money printing to bribe the schools, the hospitals, the industries, the pharmaceutical makers, and the media in particular, to push this whole pandemic narrative through and make us do what they wanted.

Now everybody thinks we’re coming up for another pandemic soon. The FDA is pushing out a new COVID vaccine in the middle of September. What are they going to do to us next? Are they going to be able to print money again and dole out $10 trillion of our grandchildren’s money?

I think people are starting to understand this money printing inflationary spiral, and how it impoverishes us for the benefit of a small group. Those are bits of information — what is needed is connecting the dots. So, in my article, I tried to connect a lot of dots …

Everything in our lives is changing at the same time and people are so confused. We need those who are paying close attention and know how to write to start explaining how these things are connected. We’ve got nine months until the WHO will vote on these two documents …

At the beginning of May, I was invited to the International COVID Summit at the European Parliament in Brussels, and my talk was on the IHR amendments. I prepared a 10-minute talk … but at the last minute the sponsors said, ‘Look, you only have five minutes because we’ve run over’ … So, I’m like, ‘Oh my God, what do I do?’ I looked at my slides; what are the main points? And I gave a five-minute talk. I thought it must be terrible …

Well, somebody made a three-minute, and somebody made a four-minute, and a five-minute little video of it and sent it around on Twitter and TikTok. Now people have added sound and they’ve added images. The thing has garnered millions of views. It’s extraordinary.

But it’s because I start off saying, ‘We are experiencing a soft coup. This is what’s happening. This is what the WHO is doing.’ And it’s so short, people are able to watch it. They see this little old lady who is speaking in a very measured way, and they see the European Parliament insignia behind me, and they’re saying, ‘Oh my god, maybe this is real.’

So that little thing has gotten 5 million to 10 million views and TikTokers are now adding to it. So, I think this whole issue of the WHO trying to grab our sovereignty is very meaningful to people. We just have to figure out the right messages, get them out there, and we’ll win.”

Where to Learn More

Door To Freedom is unique in that it is trying to introduce these highly complex, interlocking aspects of the global power grab in bite-sized pieces. The website has dozens of short summary articles and videos, with longer in-depth pieces for those who want to dive deeper. We also publish each new draft of the IHR amendments and the treaty as they come out, and I encourage people to have a look at the actual documents.

So, to get a good grasp of what’s at stake, be sure to bookmark doortofreedom.org, and start sifting through it. Also, share the site with others and encourage them to learn more.

“We’ve put up the documents so people can read them,” Nass says. “We have about 30 two-minute reads about the documents, about what’s going on, about all sorts of things, trying to connect the dots on transhumanism, CBDCs, child sex education. And we have a large number of longer articles about related subjects.

So if you go to the site, it will give you an education about the massive global changes that the globalist cabal is bringing forward right now. As we speak, we’re in the middle of the coup. The coup isn’t next year. It’s not when these documents get voted on. We’re in the middle of it now. The documents are part of it.

Once we’ve completed everything on the website … we will start building a worldwide coalition of organizations to fight all of this. That’s the next step. Children’s Health Defense … are taking up this issue of the WHO, and there are many other organizations I’m working with: Stand for Health Freedom, organizations in England, in the European Union [and] South Africa …

We want to then start pushing regular messaging to the world that will be the same everywhere. Education is the answer, because even if we beat back the WHO, if we don’t beat back this entire agenda, the globalists will hit us with something else, either through the U.N. or through other multilateral organizations, or through national laws that are draconian.

[We must] make people understand what’s happened over these last few years, where it’s coming from, what led up to it and where it’s going. And I think that’s the best we can do. It’s really important that we retain our ethics, our morals. We don’t want to manipulate people.

We’ve all been manipulated, we’ve been mind-controlled. The media, the advertising, the education system have all been trying to limit the way people think … We want you to open your minds, be able to identify propaganda when you see it, so that you can learn to think clearly for yourself. That’s when we win.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/10/01/who-pandemic-treaty-ihr-amendments.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20231001_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1471299&rid=1926305205