A new bill has been introduced in Idaho that would make the administration of experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines illegal.
Representative Judy Boyle (R-Midvale) and Senator Tammy Nichols (R-Middleton) sponsored House Bill 154.
Sen. Nichols introduced the new bill on the 15th of February before the House Health and Welfare Committee, according to KTVB.
According to the bill text, “A person may not provide or administer a vaccine developed using messenger ribonucleic acid technology for use in an individual or any other mammal in this state.”
Nichols said during her presentation to the committee, “We have issues this was fast tracked.”
Nichols said there is no liability, informed consent or data on mRNA vaccines. She later clarified she was referring to the two COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna.
“I think there is a lot of information that comes out with concerns to blood clots and heart issues,” Nichols said.
Rep. Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, questioned Nichols’ statement that the vaccines were fast-tracked. She said her understanding was that the vaccines were approved and survived the testing, later approved by the FDA.
Nichols said she is finding it “may not have been done like we thought it should’ve been done.”
“There are other shots we could utilize that don’t have mRNA in it,” Nichols said.
More and more medical experts, scientists, and right group advocates all over the world are now demanding that the government should stop its COVID-19 vaccination campaign due to its devastating side effects among patients.
And yet governments still turn a blind eye to one of the most atrocious crimes against humanity.
Pfizer Executive: ‘Mutate’ COVID via ‘Directed Evolution’ for Company to Continue Profiting Off of Vaccines … ‘COVID is Going to be a Cash Cow for Us’ … ‘That is Not What We Say to the Public’ … ‘People Won’t Like That’ … ‘Don’t Tell Anyone’
Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations – mRNA Scientific Planner: “One of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create — preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine — no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses.”
Walker: “Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way it [the experiment] would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we successively cause them to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial samples from them.”
Walker: “You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus [COVID] that you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere. Which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t.”
Walker: “From what I’ve heard is they [Pfizer scientists] are optimizing it [COVID mutation process], but they’re going slow because everyone is very cautious — obviously they don’t want to accelerate it too much. I think they are also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you obviously don’t want to advertise that you are figuring out future mutations.”
[NEW YORK – Jan. 25, 2023] Project Veritas released a new video today exposing a Pfizer executive, Jordon Trishton Walker, who claims that his company is exploring a way to “mutate” COVID via “Directed Evolution” to preempt the development of future vaccines.
Walker says that Directed Evolution is different than Gain-of-Function, which is defined as “a mutation that confers new or enhanced activity on a protein.” In other words, it means that a virus such as COVID can become more potent depending on the mutation / scientific experiment performed on it.
The Pfizer executive told a Veritas journalist about his company’s plan for COVID vaccines, while acknowledging that people would not like this information if it went public.
“One of the things we [Pfizer] are exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create — preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine — no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses,” Walker said.
“From what I’ve heard is they [Pfizer scientists] are optimizing it [COVID mutation process], but they’re going slow because everyone is very cautious — obviously they don’t want to accelerate it too much. I think they are also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you obviously don’t want to advertise that you are figuring out future mutations,” he said.
“Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way it [the experiment] would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we successively cause them to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial samples from them.”
Walker drew parallels between this current Pfizer project and what may have happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
“You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus [COVID] that you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere. Which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t,” he said.
“You’re not supposed to do Gain-of-Function research with viruses. Regularly not. We can do these selected structure mutations to make them more potent. There is research ongoing about that. I don’t know how that is going to work. There better not be any more outbreaks because Jesus Christ,” he said.
Walker also told the Veritas journalist that COVID has been instrumental for Pfizer’s recent business success:
Walker:Part of what they [Pfizer scientists] want to do is, to some extent, to try to figure out, you know, how there are all these new strains and variants that just pop up. So, it’s like trying to catch them before they pop up and we can develop a vaccine prophylactically, like, for new variants. So, that’s why they like, do it controlled in a lab, where they say this is a new epitope, and so if it comes out later on in the public, we already have a vaccine working.
Veritas Journalist:Oh my God. That’s perfect. Isn’t that the best business model though? Just control nature before nature even happens itself? Right?
Walker:Yeah. If it works.
Veritas Journalist:What do you mean if it works?
Walker:Because some of the times there are mutations that pop up that we are not prepared for. Like with Delta and Omicron. And things like that. Who knows? Either way, it’s going to be a cash cow. COVID is going to be a cash cow for us for a while going forward. Like obviously.
Veritas Journalist:Well, I think the whole research of the viruses and mutating it, like, would be the ultimate cash cow.
Walker:Yeah, it’d be perfect.
Walker went on to explain how Big Pharma and government officials, such as at the Food & Drug Administration [FDA], have mutual interests, and how that is not in the best interest of the American people:
Walker:[Big Pharma] is a revolving door for all government officials.
Veritas Journalist:Wow.
Walker:In any industry though. So, in the pharma industry, all the people who review our drugs — eventually most of them will come work for pharma companies. And in the military, defense government officials eventually work for defense companies afterwards.
…
Veritas Journalist:How do you feel about that revolving door?
Walker:It’s pretty good for the industry to be honest. It’s bad for everybody else in America.
Veritas Journalist:Why is it bad for everybody else?
Walker:Because when the regulators reviewing our drugs know that once they stop regulating, they are going to work for the company, they are not going to be as hard towards the company that’s going to give them a job.
About Project Veritas
James O’Keefe established Project Veritas in 2010 as a non-profit journalism enterprise to continue his undercover reporting work. Today, Project Veritas investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions to achieve a more ethical and transparent society and to engage in litigation to: protect, defend and expand human and civil rights secured by law, specifically First Amendment rights including promoting the free exchange of ideas in a digital world; combat and defeat censorship of any ideology; promote truthful reporting; and defend freedom of speech and association issues including the right to anonymity. O’Keefe serves as the CEO and Chairman of the Board so that he can continue to lead and teach his fellow journalists, as well as protect and nurture the Project Veritas culture.
Project Veritas is a registered 501(c)3 organization. Project Veritas does not advocate specific resolutions to the issues raised through its investigations.
Judge Rejects FDA’s 75 Year Delay On Vax Data, Cuts To Just 8 Months
A federal judge has rejected a request by the FDA to produce just 500 pages per month of the data submitted by Pfizer to license its Covid-19 vaccine – and has ordered them to produce 55,000 pages per month. Assuming there are roughly 450,000 pages, that means it will take just over eight months for the world to see what’s under the hood.
Attorney Aaron Siri, who represents the plaintiff in the case, has provided this stunning update via his blog, Injecting Freedom:
On behalf of a client, my firm requested that the FDA produce all the data submitted by Pfizer to license its Covid-19 vaccine. The FDA asked the Court for permission to only be required to produce at a rate of 500 pages per month, which would have taken over 75 years to produce all the documents.
I am pleased to report that a federal judge soundly rejected the FDA’s request and ordered the FDA to produce all the data at a clip of 55,000 pages per month!
This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal “health” authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program – issues which include waningimmunity, variants evading vaccine immunity, and, as the CDC has confirmed, that the vaccines do not prevent transmission.
No person should ever be coerced to engage in an unwanted medical procedure. And while it is bad enough the government violated this basic liberty right by mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, the government also wanted to hide the data by waiting to fully produce what it relied upon to license this product until almost every American alive today is dead. That form of governance is destructive to liberty and antithetical to the openness required in a democratic society.
In ordering the release of the documents in a timely manner, the Judge recognized that the release of this data is of paramount public importance and should be one of the FDA’s highest priorities. He then aptly quoted James Madison as saying a “popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy” and John F. Kennedy as explaining that a “nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
The following is the full text of the Judge’s order, a copy of which is also available here.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PHMPT, Plaintiff v. FDA, Defendant, No. 4:21-cv-1058-P
ORDER
This case involves the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Specifically, at issue is Plaintiff’s FOIA request seeking “[a]ll data and information for the Pfizer Vaccine enumerated in 21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e) with the exception of publicly available reports on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System” from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). See ECF No. 1. As has become standard, the Parties failed to agree to a mutually acceptable production schedule; instead, they submitted dueling production schedules for this Court’s consideration. Accordingly, the Court held a conference with the Parties to determine an appropriate production schedule.[1] See ECF Nos. 21, 34.
“Open government is fundamentally an American issue” – it is neither a Republican nor a Democrat issue.[2] As James Madison wrote, “[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”[3] John F. Kennedy likewise recognized that “a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”[4] And, particularly appropriate in this case, John McCain (correctly) noted that “[e]xcessive administrative secrecy . . . feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in the government.”[5]
Echoing these sentiments, “[t]he basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, [which is] vital to the functioning of a democratic society.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1977). “FOIA was [therefore] enacted to ‘pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’” Batton v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169, 175 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)). And “Congress has long recognized that ‘information is often useful only if it is timely’ and that, therefore ‘excessive delay by the agency in its response is often tantamount to denial.’” Open Soc’y Just. Initiative v. CIA, 399 F. Supp. 3d 161, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 93-876, at 6271 (1974)). When needed, a court “may use its equitable powers to require an agency to process documents according to a court-imposed timeline.” Clemente v. FBI, 71 F. Supp. 3d 262, 269 (D.D.C. 2014).
Here, the Court recognizes the “unduly burdensome” challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA. See generally ECF Nos. 23, 30, 34. But, as expressed at the scheduling conference, there may not be a “more important issue at the Food and Drug Administration . . . than the pandemic, the Pfizer vaccine, getting every American vaccinated, [and] making sure that the American public is assured that this was not [] rush[ed] on behalf of the United States . . . .” ECF No. 34 at 46. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance.
“[S]tale information is of little value.” Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Court, agreeing with this truism, therefore concludes that the expeditious completion of Plaintiff’s request is not only practicable, but necessary. See Bloomberg, L.P. v. FDA, 500 F. Supp. 2d 371, 378 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2007) (“[I]t is the compelling need for such public understanding that drives the urgency of the request.”). To that end, the Court further concludes that the production rate, as detailed below, appropriately balances the need for unprecedented urgency in processing this request with the FDA’s concerns regarding the burdens of production. See Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 284–85 (2nd Cir. 1991) (“[FOIA] emphasizes a preference for the fullest possible agency disclosure of such information consistent with a responsible balancing of competing concerns . . . .”).
Accordingly, having considered the Parties’ arguments, filings in support, and the applicable law, the Court ORDERS that:
1. The FDA shall produce the “more than 12,000 pages” articulated in its own proposal, see ECF No. 29 at 24, on or before January 31, 2022.
2. The FDA shall produce the remaining documents at a rate of 55,000 pages every 30 days, with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.
3. To the extent the FDA asserts any privilege, exemption, or exclusion as to any responsive record or portion thereof, FDA shall, concurrent with each production required by this Order, produce a redacted version of the record, redacting only those portions as to which privilege, exemption, or exclusion is asserted.
4. The Parties shall submit a Joint Status Report detailing the progress of the rolling production by April 1, 2022, and every 90 days thereafter.[6]
SO ORDERED on this 6th day of January, 2022.
[1] Surprisingly, the FDA did not send an agency representative to the scheduling conference.
[2] 151 CONG. REC. S1521 (daily ed. Feb. 16, 2005) (statement of Sen. John Cornyn).
[3] Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), in 9 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 103 (S. Hunt ed., 1910).
[4] John F. Kennedy, Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America (Feb. 26, 1962).
[5] America After 9/11: Freedom Preserved or Freedom Lost?: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 302 (2003).
[6] Although the Court does not decide whether the FDA correctly denied Plaintiff’s request for expedited processing, the issue is not moot. Should the Parties seek to file motions for summary judgment, the Court will take up the issue then.
If Pfizer insists that certain unvaccinated persons who come into contact with a vaccinated person creates a…
SAFETY SITUATION that must be reported to Pfizer within 24 hours…
Would you say that implies…
The transfer of vaccine components from person to person can occur?
If you answered YES, you win four tickets to Oobladee, a little-known island nation where vaccines are forbidden and the people naturally remain healthy and live to a ripe old age.
Here is a Pfizer document, admitting and warning of person-to-person transfer of dangerous vaccine components [1]: “A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS,” (see page 67).
I’m going to take this in small chunks, and translate the fake-speak clinical language as we go along.
“Exposure to the study intervention under study during pregnancy or breastfeeding and occupational exposure are reportable to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of investigator awareness.”
The “study intervention” means the RNA COVID shot. That’s what the study is FOR—intervening with a jab. “Hi, I’m your intervener, you’re a volunteer in the clinical trial, and I’m going to hit you in the arm with this needle and inject you.”
“Exposure” to the shot doesn’t mean injection. It means somebody who hasn’t been injected gets physically close to somebody who has been injected. Or it could mean an un-injected person touches vaccine-liquid from a vial.
And that un-injected somebody would be a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding. For example, she could be a lab worker, or a person who is giving the shots.
If THIS exposure event happens, it’s a safety situation, and it has to be reported within 24 hours.
A lab worker who is pregnant or breastfeeding gets physically close to a person who has received the vaccine and BANG, it’s serious, and it has to be reported.
Why? Because, obviously, there is a potential danger to the unborn baby. Or the mother, who is already breastfeeding her baby, could pass this danger to the baby through her breast milk.
The woman just came physically close to a person who already received the vaccine. That’s all. That’s all that happened. But it’s enough. It means THERE CAN BE A TRANSFER OF VACCINE COMPONENTS FROM PERSON TO PERSON, AND THIS IS NOT GOOD, THIS IS DANGEROUS TO PREGNANT AND BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS AND THEIR BABIES.
Here is the next piece of the Pfizer document. It’s crucial:
“An EDP [exposure to the vaccine during pregnancy] occurs if a male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”
This is a dangerous situation, too. A man who did get the shot then gets physically close to his female partner, who didn’t get the shot. This doesn’t necessarily mean sex. It means close physical contact. But the warning is obviously all about danger to the woman who is going to conceive a child or has just conceived, and the warning is also about a danger to that child. Some kind of severe injury. Or a miscarriage. Again, the document is obviously referring to the transfer of vaccine components from a vaccinated to unvaccinated person.
And then, in the Pfizer document, we find an example of this dangerous, immediately reportable situation: “A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact….”
Here, as plain as day, we see two meanings of “come in close contact with.” Inhalation, and skin contact. Do not assume this has to mean physically rubbing up against or breathing in the liquid in the vaccine vial. Go back and read the other quotes I gave you from the Pfizer document. They are clearly talking about something much different. They’re talking about close contact between PEOPLE, one of whom has ALREADY had the shot, and one who hasn’t.
They’re talking about vaccine components passing from the inside of one person’s body to another person.
Call it shedding, call it transfer, call it transmission, call it whatever you want to. Pfizer was clearly worried about it, because they insisted that any such occurrence had to be reported to company safety personnel.
They were aware that damage could be the result. Damage to mothers conceiving, mothers pregnant, mothers who are breastfeeding, and damage to babies.
Through person to person passage of components in the vaccine.
A person might object, saying, “Well, maybe the pregnant woman had skin contact with someone who was just vaccinated, and the vaccinated person has a small amount of vaccine on his skin, because that tiny amount of liquid somehow escaped from the needle during injection.”
That’s highly doubtful. And if you go back and read the Pfizer statement about the man who received the vaccine and then had close contact with his female partner, there is no time line mentioned. A) He received the shot and then b) at some point later, he came into close contact with his female partner. It could be days later, weeks later. There would be no amount of vaccine left on his skin.
We ARE talking about the passage of vaccine components from the inside of one person’s body to another person.
The censors at Facebook’s ministry of truth have sunk to a new low. Yesterday at 1:35 p.m. EST, TFTP journalist Don Via Jr received a 24-hour ban on the platform for posting a completely factually accurate meme acknowledging big pharma’s history of rampant corruption.
Unlike other instances of individuals being censored on the platform however, in which the social media company attempts to thinly veil their censorship behind openly biased fact-checkers. This time there was none. No “fact check” for “false information”. Simply a notification of the post being removed from Mr. Via’s Break The Matrix Facebook page, and a notice that all of his accounts were restricted for 24 hours.
Below is the meme in question.
What makes this act of censorship particularly egregious is the blatant nature with which Facebook is now suppressing 100% verifiable facts.
After disputing the decision, Facebook replied with an automated message stating “We don’t allow false information that could cause physical harm. In some cases this includes information that recognized health organizations say could mislead people about how to cure or prevent a disease or that could discourage people from seeking medical treatment.”
In this case though, none of the information stated was false.
For instance, the first tier of the graphic claims that since inception in 1848, Pfizer has racked up nearly 5 billion dollars in criminal charges. While the exact total may vary a bit, the facts regarding their history of rampant corruption and medical malfeasance is.
In 1991, the FDA charged Pfizer subsidiary Shiley with withholding information from safety regulators and deliberately falsifying manufacturing records with regards to faulty heart valves. Nearly 300 people died from Pfizer’s faulty products and ultimately the company spent 205 million dollars settling the tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against them.
Despite this, Pfizer resisted to comply with FDA orders to notify patients and ultimately paid an additional $10 million when the Department of Justice charged them with lying to regulators.
In 2012 the company was forced to pay 60 million dollars after it was exposed for bribing foreign doctors to sell their products.
These are only a select few examples of the company’s history rife with criminal activity. More can be seen under Pfizer’s corporate rap sheet via the Corporate Research Project.
The second tier of the meme asserts that Moderna has not successfully completed the production of a viable vaccine in the company’s history. This can be confirmed via a simple internet search. In May of 2020, it was reported by The Daily Mail and CNN that Moderna has a track record of never bringing a successful vaccine to market since the company’s founding in 2010.
Furthermore, despite the company’s dubious past it was reported that Moderna was first tapped to lead U.S. vaccine development in what equated to a gamble. Simply because the company’s slick talking CEO was able to get the attention of former President Trump with bold promises during a meeting with biotech executives.
The third tier of the meme acknowledges the well-documented history of heinous crimes committed by Johnson & Johnson. Of which TFTP has also extensively covered in recent years.
But these only scratch the surface of the company’s flagrant human rights abuses. Among them, being one of the main financiers alongside, Dow Chemical and the United States Army, funding 20 years of unethical human experiments by Dr. Albert Kligman in Pennsylvania’s Holmesburg prison. Experiments which entailed prisoners being financially coerced to “volunteer” as research subjects to study mind-altering drugs, painful medical procedures, radiation, and chemical weapons such as Agent Orange.
As a matter of fact, in addition to Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson — It is thoroughly documented by the Corporate Research Project that nearly every major company involved in the development of Covid-19 vaccines has an abhorrent history of medical malfeasance, and criminal charges.
Finally, the last section of the meme asserts that AstraZeneca’s covid-19 vaccine has itself already been suspended in 24 countries due to health concerns. Yet again, a simple query in your preferred search engine can corroborate this as a fact.
As a March 16th report from Al Jazeera explains; the countries of Sweden, Latvia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Portugal, Slovenia, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Ireland, Bulgaria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand, Romania, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Austria have all suspended the Oxford / AstraZeneca jab in some capacity.
Since that report the Philippines and Australia have also suspended the shot for individuals under 60 years of age. Venezuela has also refused to authorize it.
What Facebook is doing by deleting this content, which by all accounts is completely accurate, is suppressing vital information that the people have a right to know. Informed consent matters, and it’s not something that can be so freely thrown to the wayside — certainly not as adverse events reported to the CDC are at an all-time high.
The company is now essentially working as a cover-up crew to protect those with which they have a vested financial or political interest. While their counterparts in the mainstream media ingloriously propagate the notion that those concerned with vaccine safety are domestic terrorists.
Bodily autonomy is paramount, and individuals have an inherent right to be given all the facts so that they are adequately informed to make proper decisions with regard to their health.
Just because the truth is unpleasant, does not make it misinformation. As a matter of fact, censoring unpleasant truths in favor of biased one-sided narratives is the greatest danger of all.
Whopper-doozie alert! This one is so over the top that I simply had to blog about it. It was shared by W.G., whom I thank for bringing to my attention. To be honest, this is such a whopper-doozie that I don’t even know where to start with respect to today’s high octane speculation, and I rather suspect – once readers dive into the article – that it will stimulate your own speculations. I’m presenting three different sources or versions of this story, because it is so unbelievably breathtaking in its implications:
Let’s look at the second article linked above. Consider these breathtaking paragraphs:
Pfizer has been accused of “bullying” Latin American governments in Covid vaccine negotiations and has asked some countries to put up sovereign assets, such as embassy buildings and military bases, as a guarantee against the cost of any future legal cases, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.
In the case of one country, demands made by the pharmaceutical giant led to a three-month delay in a vaccine deal being agreed. For Argentina and Brazil, no national deals were agreed at all. Any hold-up in countries receiving vaccines means more people contracting Covid-19 and potentially dying.
Officials from Argentina and the other Latin American country, which cannot be named as it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, said the company’s negotiators demanded additional indemnity against any civil claims citizens might file if they experienced adverse effects after being inoculated. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer asked for sovereign assets to be put up as collateral for any future legal costs.
One official who was present in the unnamed country’s negotiations described Pfizer’s demands as “high-level bullying” and said the government felt like it was being “held to ransom” in order to access life-saving vaccines. (Boldface emphasis added)
That pretty much sums it up; “Muck Pharmaceuticals” as we like to call Big Pharma here, in the form of Pfizer, is allegedly demanding collateral against potential lawsuits against its “vaccine.” Now my high octane speculation of the day comes in the form of three questions: (1) Why would Pfizer be so concerned about potential lawsuits if it was confident its “vaccine” was safe? (2) why would it ask nations for embassies and military bases? And (3) was the idea of collateralizing embassies and military bases the objective of the planscamdemic/”vaccine” operation one of the goals at the outset of the whole planscamdemic to begin with?
In looking at question one, we gain a bit of a speculative clue: seizing a nation’s embassies and military bases is, from one point of view, a real estate scam, one which anticipates that lawsuits are likely to be both many and costly, which is in its way a tacit admission that there are “problems” with the “vaccines.” The amounts of money are likely to be vast, and thus, hard assets are required in order to minimize Muck Pharmaceutical’s exposure to the risk.
But that brings us to question two: why ask for embassies and military bases? This, in my opinion, means one of two things, and possibly both together: either Pfizer’s action is on behalf of someone else whom it anticipates can buy those assets – and has the money to do so – should lawsuits ensue, or Pfizer itself views itself as a sovereign entity, in need of embassies and military bases to enforce its corporate will, which implies its having plans for a professional corporate military, or its has already developed one. Or, as I already stated, it is some combination of these two. With regard to the first prospect, there are few actors on the world stage that would have the liquidity to buy such hard assets, and use them for their original intended purpose. China would certainly be one primary suspect, and after all, the planscamdemic did originate there in a certain sense. But there could be others as well, including extra-territorial actors.
And that leads us to question three: was this one of the goals (among many others) that Mr. Globaloney wanted to accomplish through the planscamdemic? I suspect it’s a strong possibility, since it is clear that Mr. Globaloney is using the whole farce to further his agenda of control. And control doesn’t work unless one has centers for intelligence operations that are “sovereign territory” (embassies) and a means to enforce its dictates (military bases).
When one considers that there are other effective methods of covid treatment, this draconian effort regarding vaccines seems to make the agenda all too obvious.
‘This Week’ With Mary + Polly: You Can’t Sweep Deaths Under the Rug + Free Pot With Your COVID Shot? + More
In “This Week” with Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense vice chair and general counsel, and Polly Tommey, co-producer of “Vaxxed,” Mary and Polly discuss the growing reports of injuries and deaths from COVID vaccines … and more.
As The Defender reported, in the U.S., 66 deaths have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These haven’t been fully investigated yet, but clearly many people, mostly the frail elderly but also some younger (as in the 56-year-old Florida doctor) are reporting serious injuries, even death. “People are dying from these vaccines. That can’t be swept under the rug by mainstream media.”
Adverse reactions to COVID vaccines that are being reported “are similar to those we’ve seen from HPV vaccines, only worse.”
Some “fantastic” news: Massachusetts rescinded its flu vaccine mandate. “This is the power of the courts.”
More exciting news: A group of scientists convinced the National Institutes of Health to no longer recommend against the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID. “It’s very exciting that this cheap, effective treatment is no longer being withheld from patients.”
A new peer-reviewed study from Stanford University says there’s no benefit to COVID lockdowns. “There are lawsuits against these in virtually every state.”
Despite a big push to get nursing home workers to get the COVID vaccine, some are pushing back. A Wisconsin nursing home said it will lay off employees who refuse the vaccine. “We believe any attempt for an employer to mandate a vaccine that hasn’t been licensed by the FDA is illegal. Under federal and state law, no one can be forced to participate in this experiment.”
The Telegraph reported that Germany’s eastern state of Saxony says it could put people who violate COVID quarantine rules in detention centers. “Human rights lawyers say this won’t fly, but we have to be very concerned about these detention centers.”
Forbes reported this week that a group calling itself “Joints for Jabs” is offering free marijuana as an incentive to get the COVID vaccine. “What I find most disturbing about this article is this quote: ‘If you believe in the science that supports medical cannabis, you should believe the science that supports the efficacy of the vaccine.’ Science isn’t something you ‘believe,’ it’s something that’s proven.”
If you see something disturbing, as in evidence of “quarantine camps” or attempts to bully people into getting the vaccine, or if you or someone you know experiences an adverse reaction, please contact CHD@childrenshealth.org. “These messages don’t go into a black hole, we react to all of them.”
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.
(Please note that I have excerpted a good deal of the text which is available at the link below)
Sausage Making at FDA: How Human Cancer Cells Got Into Vaccines
In a 2012 meeting, the FDA voted to allow the use of human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines, despite acknowledging the many risks, including that vaccine recipients might later develop cancer.
“If the American people knew some of the things that went on at the FDA, they’d never take anything but Bayer aspirin.” — Len Lutwalk, FDA scientist
“The FDA, by spinelessly knuckling under to every whim of the drug companies, has thrown away its high reputation, and in doing so, forfeited our trust.” — Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA
…
Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee today
Today — Thursday, Dec. 10 — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) internal panel that licenses new vaccines as “safe and effective,” will meet to consider Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. VRBAC will meet in one week, Dec. 17, to consider approval of the Moderna vaccine.
The damning safety studies in Pfizer’s late release clinical trial data dump, and the severe (life-threatening) allergic reactions that bedeviled the vaccine’s UK rollout, have raised red flags and public anxiety about the safety of the companies’ mRNA vaccines. Anthony Fauci has addressed growing skepticism about COVID vaccines and the Operation Warp Speed program, by reassuring the public that “VRBPAC” is an “independent panel of leading experts” whom the public can absolutely trust to assure vaccine safety.
…
How FDA originally approved use of fetal cells in vaccines
FDA allows both human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines. Both types have cancer risks. While both Pfizer and Moderna tested their mRNA vaccine using fetal cells, there are no fetal cells, cell debris or DNA in their final products.
However, according to company documents, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) and Altimmune’s COVID vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line PER-C6, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from these cells. Researchers harvested these cell lines from the eyeball of an 18-week-old human fetus aborted in 1985, and then rendered them immortal by making them cancerous.
The AstraZeneca, Cansino, Gamayela, Vaxart, LongComm and Upitt vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line HEK293, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from the fetal HEK-293 cell line. Scientists harvested this cell line from the kidney of a female Dutch fetus legally aborted in 1973 and then immortalized the cells by rendering them cancerous.
Normal primary cells, which are unable to replicate indefinitely, ultimately die. Immortalized cell lines are derived from known malignant cancer cells such as those obtained from Henrietta Lacks (HeLa) or created in the laboratory by introducing viral oncogenes or chemical exposures capable of mutating normal primary cells into immortal tumor cells.
According to FDA’s “The Pink Sheet” dated Nov. 29, 1999, for two decades the agency has been acutely aware of the inherent risks of using immortalized cell lines for vaccine development. The FDA CBER Director Dr. Peter Patriarca, M.D. explained that continuous cell lines are used for their ability to self-propagate, making them an ideal substrate on which to grow viruses, “the worst thing we are concerned about is … malignancy, because some of these continuous cells have the potential for growing tumors in laboratory animals.”
Patriarca further conceded that “the technology to make these vaccines actually exceeds the science and technology to understand how these vaccines work and to predict how they will work.” …
We call vaccines “biologics” because vaccinologists have traditionally grown their antigens on biological substrates — usually animal tissue. Competing companies culture COVID vaccines on a variety of animal strata. The Merck and IAVA COVID vaccines are manufactured in vero monkey cells, and thus contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from vero monkeys in the final product. The Sanofi, GSK, and Novavax COVID jabs are manufactured in insect cells and thus contain insect cellular debris and DNA fragments in the final products.
Public health advocates criticize the use of animal tissues in vaccines due to risks that they carry endogenous viruses, microbes, parasites and lack safety testing. (Plague of Corruption, Mikovits 2020). …
Researchers and regulatory agencies have worried for more than 50 years about the potential for injected DNA to cause cancer. …
Regulators have in the past predicted that the odds of that happening were less than 1 in a trillion. However, in early gene therapy trials this event did indeed occur in 4 of 9 boys, 1 of whom died from the leukemia the insertions caused.
But as corrupt as FDA is, the internal panels — VRBAC — that approve new vaccines make the rest of the agency look like a Sunday church picnic.
When Dr. Fauci, Paul Offit, Peter Hotez and Bill Gates tell you that you needn’t worry because FDA is the “gold standard” for vaccine safety and that the ultimate licensing decision will be made by an “independent panel of experts,” they are talking about VRBPAC. But VRBPAC is far from “independent.” It is not even comprised exclusively of public officials. Instead, it is populated by outside “experts” who are almost all pharmaceutical industry insiders.
In 2003, following a 3-year investigation, the United States Congress’s House Oversight Committee found VRBAC was completely dominated by the vaccine industry.
“Examples of Conflicts of Interest:
“For instance, 3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee (VRBPAC) members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
“One out of five voting members’ employer had a $9,586,000 contract for a rotavirus vaccine.
“One out of five voting members was the principal investigator for a Merck grant to develop a rotavirus vaccine.
“One out of five voting members received approximately $1 million from vaccine manufacturers toward vaccine development.”
Congressional investigators concluded that, “Altogether, four out of the five committee members had conflicts of interest that required waivers, and their recommendation for approval of the vaccine was unanimous.”
Here’s what happened at the 2012 FDA meeting on fetal cells
HHS acknowledges that the FDA and Centers for Disease Control committees that contract and review new vaccines have historically not used “evidence-based medicine.” To illustrate what this means, one only need read (below) the astonishing transcript of the 2012 panel that first approved the use of adult cancer tumor cells in vaccines.
This transcript shows what the public is never supposed to see: the behind-the-scenes sausage-making of federal vaccine approvals. Here, you will read for yourself how the “independent,” “gold standard” panelists entrusted with protecting your children made monumentally consequential decisions, not on evidence-based science, but by rolling the dice and taking what they knew was a horrendously risky bet on public health
In any other realm, this transcript would be proof of negligent homicide. … We are all lab rats in their high-risk population-wide experiment. At FDA’s vaccine division, that sort of reckless decision-making is routine.
In 2012, most live virus vaccines were from animal tissue and the idea of putting potentially cancerous tumor cells from adult “donors” in vaccines was still a daring and audacious gamble. That September, the FDA VRBPAC committee met to discuss this risky innovation. The transcript of that meeting — showing captive FDA officials considering a proposal by the pharma cabal to allow the use of human cancer cells (HeLa) to replace animal tissue in the manufacture of vaccines — is proof of reckless criminal conduct.
Unbelievably, FDA voted to allow pharmaceutical companies to produce vaccines using human cells without reviewing a single scientific study to determine if the outcome would be safe.
Before, I quoted some of the criminally reckless statements from the meeting directly. A more detailed account appears in this article.
This was a full meeting of FDA’s VRBPAC in 2012 to decide on the use of human tumor cell lines for the production of vaccines. I list these speakers and their titles at that time:
Dr. Philip Krause, Acting Deputy Director of OVRR (Office of Vaccine Research and Review) and FDA’s CBER (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research). Also, Principal Investigator for Vaccine Safety: Virus Detection and Latency.
Dr. Doug Lowy, Director of the National Cancer Institute of the NIH.
Dr. Robert Daum, Chair of the VRBPAC.
Donald W. Jehn M.S., Designated Federal Officer for VRBPAC.
Keith Peden, PhD, Chief of LDNAV, DVP/OVRR/CBER.
Dr. Marion Gruber, Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines.
Dr. Nathanial Brady, a self-described clinician.
Dr. Pamela McInnes, a vaccine development expert and the Director of the Division of Extramural Research at the NIH’s National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, and previously a Deputy Director under Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Pharma knew that their tumorigenic vaccines might cause tumors in recipients.
…
FDA officials knew that tumors might occur decades after vaccination.
…
FDA openly acknowledged that its primary objective was not to assure public safety but to help vaccine manufacturers.
…
FDA officials knew that they could not prove vaccine safety using test animals to assess oncogenicity.
…
FDA officials deliberately terminated animal safety tests too early in order to conceal consequences.
…
FDA decided to keep the tumor cell lines secret, because doctors and the public may be alarmed and say “Oh, my God!” if they knew the truth.
…
FDA decided to use deceptive language to convince doctors and the public that the vaccines were safe even when they, themselves, were unconvinced of safety.
…
FDA decided to hide information about their use of tumor cells and omit it from package inserts.
…
Health authorities were skeptical about safety of the tumor lines, but they decided to subject the public to the risk, so that they could perform a global population-wide live human experiment.
…
FDA officials opted to toss the dice, perform the population-wide human experiment, and learn about the risks as time goes by.
…
The committee formally approves the method of making vaccines from human cancer tumors.
..
Prior to voting to go forward, the committee made the following conclusions:
Making vaccines with cells that are directly derived from human cancer tumors is faster and cheaper than breeding animals for the culture media.
Millions of potentially cancer-causing vaccines will be produced.
The vaccines may possibly cause genetic mutations.
Millions of dollars will be made by vaccine promoters.
The health of millions of consumers may be jeopardized.
Information about how vaccines are made will be hidden from doctors and
Finally, it’s worth considering that cancer treatment drugs like Keytruda are among pharmaceutical companies’ largest profit makers. Precipitating a cancer epidemic in human populations only benefits vaccine makers’ bottom line.
Remember, these are the same companies and the same FDA regulators that brought us the opioid epidemic.
Americans have been following COVID-19 vaccine trial developments for weeks, watching companies jockey for frontrunner status like contestants in a reality TV show. And though participants in some of the studies (by Moderna, Oxford, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer) have surfaced with reactions serious enough to pause several of the trials, market analysts remain “bullish” about the near-term prospects for approval of these liability-free products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
On Oct. 16, Pfizer’s CEO indicated the company would likely file for FDA Emergency Use Authorization for its experimental BNT162b2 vaccine in late November. That statement came three days after Pfizer announced that it had received FDA permission to administer the unproven vaccine to children as young as 12, becoming the first company in the U.S. to include young participants in Phase 3 trials. In the UK, Oxford and AstraZeneca gained approval to test their vaccine in children aged 5-12 back in May, a couple of months before two of their adult clinical trial participants developed transverse myelitis.
To date, Pfizer has administered two doses of vaccine to almost 35,000 adult participants in five countries. Unworried by the dramatic side effects reported by some of these adults — including high fever, pounding headaches, body aches, exhaustion and shivering intense enough to crack teeth — more than 90 parents have already expressed interest in volunteering their teenagers.
Are these parents (perhaps left unemployed by coronavirus restrictions) tempted by the financial incentives offered to clinical trial participants, reportedly anywhere from $1200 to $2000? Otherwise, their motivation for wanting to throw their children into the experimental fray is unclear; as the director of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital stated, “most of the time, what a coronavirus causes is a cold” that does not even make children “sick enough to where a parent says they need to go to a doctor.”
The Cincinnati physician has, nonetheless, just started giving Pfizer’s shot to 16- and 17-year-olds (and soon to 12-15-year-olds). To entice additional young participants, he tells parents that the COVID-19 death rate in children is “not zero” — but declines to spell out that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the survival rate in those age 19 and under is 99.997%. Using similarly vague language, a Memorial Sloan-Kettering health policy expert said that a COVID-19 vaccine’s benefits for the young would likely be “secondary’ in nature” but characterized the gesture as “an act of service to help protect others.”
However, reports in Pediatrics and other journals assert that children are not a source of infection and are far more likely to acquire COVID-19 from adults “rather than transmitting it to them.” In other words, policymakers expect children to accept a risk-benefit equation heavily tilted toward risk.
Corporate bad guy
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer — the second-largest drug and biotech company in the world and the fourth-highest earner of vaccine revenues — has seen a 7% increase in its share value this year. However, though Pfizer claims to be a standard-bearer for “quality, safety and value,” it has a corporate rap sheet a mile long. Pfizer is routinely mired in controversies involving alleged price-fixing, bribery, kickbacks, tax avoidance, regulatory misdirection and other unsavory practices and has also repeatedly paid fines for environmental violations at its research and manufacturing plants.
Critics point to decades of aggressive and questionable marketing. In 2009, this behavior earned Pfizer the dubious distinction of paying the largest-ever criminal fine at the time — $2.3 billion — for fraudulent and illegal promotion of four drugs, including a painkiller marketed at “dangerously high” doses. In 2016, a British regulator levied a $106 million fine against Pfizer for a 2600% increase in the price of a widely prescribed anti-epilepsy drug that increased the National Health Services’ expenditures from one year to the next — for a single drug—from $2.5 million to $63 million.
Perhaps to compensate for its unpleasant track record, Pfizer is the top drug company spender in state elections, even outspending the industry’s own lobbying group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRM). As a just-published analysis of drug company political spending by STAT and the National Institute on Money and Politics shows, Pfizer’s “prolific” state-level spending ($778,000 since January 2019) “mirrors its behavior at the federal level, where its [political action committee] was also the top political spender among drug companies” — roughly $1 million over the same time period. The report pointedly notes that while the amounts paid out to legislators represent a “pittance” for a company earning tens of billions a year, “those small chunks of corporate change can have a significant impact.”
Pfizer’s vaccines
Pfizer is responsible for two vaccines on the U.S. childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule: the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnar-13 (given to children under 5 and also to older adults) and the meningococcal vaccine Trumenba (approved for 10 – 25-year-olds). Package inserts link the two vaccines to a large number of serious adverse events, including anaphylaxis and other allergic reactions, severe headaches and chronic muscle and joint pain. Among the roughly 40 harms listed in the Prevnar-13 insert are sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and half a dozen other fatal outcomes.
Pfizer developed its COVID-19 vaccine — which uses experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) technology — in partnership with the German biopharma company BioNTech. Although mRNA vaccines must be stored in special ultra-low-temperature freezers that pose certain logistic obstacles, Pfizer is gung-ho on the never-before-approved approach because it bypasses the more costly and difficult methods used in traditional vaccine production. It does this by essentially turning recipients into “vaccine factories” — with long-term risks that are unknown.
Pfizer and BioNTech brought their COVID-19 vaccine candidates “from concept into clinical development” in under three months, perhaps helped along by the current Pfizer CEO’s efforts to restructure Pfizer into a more “nimble” company. At the same time, observers who now place Pfizer at the head of the pack for COVID-19 vaccines credit the company’s “well-oiled system,” remarking that “Pfizer’s incredibly organized and is always … a couple steps ahead, planning where they want to go.”
Conflicts of interest and revolving doors
In the summer of 2019, after having served as the Trump administration’s FDA commissioner for two years, Scott Gottlieb passed through the revolving door to join Pfizer’s board of directors as well as becoming a regular contributor on CNBC. For the past four decades, stepping onto pharmaceutical boards has been par for the course for departing FDA commissioners, though Gottlieb may have upped the ante by also joining the boards of the AI- and big-data-reliant genetic testing start-up, Tempus, and the biotech company Illumina.
While at the FDA, Gottlieb presided over a record number of drug approvals. According to one commentator, this “trail-blazing” FDA stint and Gottlieb’s focus on “hustling up the [drug approval] process … helped endear him to the industry, making him one of the most popular commissioners in FDA history.” As the director of a consumer watchdog group put it, “He’s basically been a shill for pharmaceutical corporations for much of his career.” Two months before stepping down from the agency, Gottlieb attracted notice when he strongly denied any link between vaccines and autism while publicly threatening that the federal government might be “forced” to intervene in states with vaccine exemptions to make vaccines mandatory across the board.
Gottlieb’s affiliation with CNBC may explain why he has been a frequent public face during the coronavirus pandemic, promoting the U.S. as a world leader in the vaccine race but also vocally endorsing measures like universal masking, universal testing and restaurant and school shutdowns. On October 19, Gottlieb dourly told Americans that the U.S. is “entering a pretty difficult period” and that “the hardest part is probably [still] ahead.” Ironically, around the same time that Gottlieb was using positive test results to hype ongoing restrictive measures, a former Pfizer vice-president and chief science officer in the UK characterized mass testing as “inappropriate,” asserting that “it is impossible for the positives to be much other than false.” Discussing the harsh policies that have been particularly disastrous for children, the former Pfizer executive agreed that they have essentially been based on “completely fake data.”
Kids at risk
Reporter Whitney Webb recently outlined how Operation Warp Speed is awarding contracts to vaccine companies through a nongovernmental defense contractor intermediary, a tactic that shields the contracts from oversight and federal regulation. Meanwhile, Moncef Slaoui — who heads up the Operation Warp Speed initiative — stated that after a round of testing in adolescents, he expects the leading coronavirus vaccines to also be tested in toddlers and babies. Parents would do well to keep their children on the sidelines of these experiments. If vaccine clinical trials, including Pfizer’s, are already generating concerning results in adults capable of describing their symptoms, what will happen when preverbal babies experience similar adverse outcomes?
People around the world are watching as U.K. Judge Vanessa Baraitser hears arguments and decides whether or not to extradite Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange to the U.S.
While the Obama administration chose not to charge Assange, wary of the precedent it might set in criminalizing journalism, the Trump administration indicted him with 18 criminal charges that may land Assange in one of the U.S.’s most notorious prisons for 175 years.
Assange’s Wikileaks has won numerous journalism awards and has never had to retract a single publication despite releasing more than 10 million documents exposing, among other things, U.S. war crimes. Former CIA Director Leon Panetta recently indicated that the ongoingpersecution of Assange is meant to “send a message to others not to do the same thing.”
As the world debates whether Assange is a hero or a traitor, Children’s Health Defense takes a step back to examine some of the things his organization has revealed for those fighting for health and environmental justice.
1. U.S. diplomatic efforts to overturn resistance to GMOs at the behest of Monsanto
Wikileaks published hundreds of diplomatic cables exhibiting attempts by the U.S. to quell opposition to genetically modified organisms or GMOs. As reported by The Guardian, “the cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto.”
In a 2007 cable, Craig Stapleton, then U.S. Ambassador to France, advised the U.S. to prepare for economic war with countries unwilling to introduce Monsanto’s GM corn seeds. He recommended the U.S. “calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the E.U.”
Another dispatch, this one from 2009, demonstrated that the U.S. funded a GMO workshop in Mozambique that, according to the authors, helped advance biotech-friendly policies in the country.
In another cable from 2009, a U.S. diplomat stationed in Germany relayed intelligence on Bavarian political parties to several U.S. federal agencies and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, telling them which parties opposed Monsanto’s M810 corn seed and tactics that the U.S. could impose to resolve the opposition.
One cable from Hong Kong shows a State Department employee requesting $92,000 in U.S. public funds for “media education kits” to combat a growing popular movement calling for the labeling of GMO foods in Hong Kong. The cable indicates a desire to “make it much more difficult for mandatory labelling advocates to prevail.” The State Department’s Anita Katial, who wrote the cable, also recalled a time when her office facilitated the sending of pro-biotech and bio-agriculture DVDs to every high school in Hong Kong.
According to Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, the trove of cables “really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”
2. Multinational commodities trader dumping toxic waste in West Africa
In 2006, Trafigura, the world’s second largest oil trader, illegally discharged more than 500 tons of highly toxic oil waste near the Port of Abidjan in the Ivory Coast. Some of the dump sites were near agriculture fields or water supplies, and the UN estimates that more than 100,000 people sought medical treatment due to the incident. Wikileaks would later call this incident “possibly the most culpable mass contamination incident since Bhopal.”
Trafigura’s lawyer commissioned a confidential study that listed what the environmental and health impacts of the dumping incident would be after people living near the port started flooding hospitals.
The report explained that contact with the offloaded compounds could lead to eye damage, lung damage, skin burns, headaches, breathing difficulty, permanent skin ulceration, coma and death. The report also states that the chemical compounds would have a “severe and negative effect” on the environment.
As recently as 2016, residents were complaining about the smell of the waste, headaches, breathing problems and skin problems.
Wikileaks published the classified report in 2009, the first time the public could see the company’s true negligence.
3. Gates Foundation sees environmental activists as a threat
In 2008, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation hired an intelligence firm called Stratfor to put together a “threat assessment report” and determine current and future threats to the foundation.
Stratfor’s report saw environmental activists, indigenous farming groups, and peasant political parties in Asia and South America, as “potential threats” to the foundation.
“Threats to the foundation are likely to be directly related to the public association between the foundation and a controversial issue such as GMOs, animal testing, clinical trials and reproductive rights,” the report reads.
Stating that the primary threat to the foundation’s agriculture program comes from its work promoting GMOs, the report notes the rise of anti-GMO campaigning in developing countries, including a “staunch opposition to GMOs in India.” It even names specific activists, such as the U.S.-based anti-GMO campaigner Jeffrey Smith.
The report also mentions the work of large organizations like Greenpeace and PETA as well as alternative media outlets like the Center for Public Integrity, Mother Jones, AlterNet and the LA Times, which had just published a seriesaccusing the foundation of “reap[ing] vast financial gains from investments in companies that contribute to the human suffering in health, housing and social welfare.”
Wikileaks published the threat assessment as part of its release of more than 5 million Stratfor emails in 2012.
4. Pharma intel and espionage operation
In 1996, Pfizer, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, conducted clinical trials in Nigeria for an antibiotic called Trovan. The results were devastating, as Nigerian officials reported more than 50 children died in the experiment and dozens became disabled.
In 2006, a Nigerian government panel concluded that Pfizer violated international law and called the experiment “an illegal trial of an unregistered drug.” In 2007, Nigerian state and federal authorities sued Pfizer for $7 billion, alleging the company did not have proper consent from the children’s parents.
A 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks revealed that while the case was in federal court, Pfizer had hired a private intelligence firm to get blackmail on Nigerian Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa.
According to the cable, “Pfizer’s investigators were passing this information to local media,” who published articles on the attorney general’s “alleged” corruption. “Aondoakaa’s cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles,” it reads.
A few months after the negative articles, the Nigerian ministry of justice signed a settlement with Pfizer.
5. U.S. is a climate bully
Cables disclosed by Wikileaks in 2010 present the U.S. using what The Guardian called “spying, threats and promises of aid” to get international support for the 2009 Copenhagen Accord — an industry-friendly international climate deal with non-binding agreements to lower emissions. (Climate activist Naomi Klein described, at the time, the accord as “nothing more than a grubby pact between the world’s biggest emitters”.)
The State Department sent a secret cable to foreign embassies seeking human intelligence, or “dirt,” on UN diplomats regarding climate policy. And, as reported by Democracy Now!, the cables also indicated that the U.S. cut funding to Bolivia and Ecuador after both governments opposed the accord.
Bill McKibben, founder of the climate organization 350.org, said the cables exposed that “the U.S. was both bullying and buying countries into endorsing their do-little position on climate.”
6. International organizations consulting with Big Pharma
In 2009, Wikileaks revealed documents that the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) gave its members a report by the UN’s World Health Organization(WHO)’s Expert Working Group on research and development financing.
IFPMA members include pharmaceutical giants like Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi, and the organization represents these entities when dealing with the UN. What makes the Wikileaks document dump significant is that the working group gave IFPMA access to these documents months before their scheduled public release, suggesting that the UN’s health expert group was more accountable to the pharmaceutical industry than to its own member states.
“The compilation of documents shows the influence of ‘Big Pharma’ on the policy making decisions of the WHO,” Wikileaks commented when publishing the files.
