WHO’s In Charge???

The WHO’s Proposed Pandemic Agreements Worsen Public Health

The WHO’s Proposed Pandemic Agreements Worsen Public Health

Much has been written on the current proposals putting the World Health Organization (WHO) front and center of future pandemic responses. With billions of dollars in careers, salaries, and research funding on the table, it is difficult for many to be objective. However, there are fundamentals here that everyone with public health training should agree upon. Most others, if they take time to consider, would also agree. Including, when divorced from party politicking and soundbites, most politicians.

So here, from an orthodox public health standpoint, are some problems with the proposals on pandemics to be voted on at the World Health Assembly at the end of this month.

Unfounded Messaging on Urgency

The Pandemic Agreement (treaty) and IHR amendments have been promoted based on claims of a rapidly increasing risk of pandemics. In fact, they pose an ‘existential threat’ (i.e. one that may end our existence) according to the G20’s High Level Independent Panel in 2022. However, the increase in reported natural outbreaks on which the WHO, the World Bank, G20, and others based these claims is shown to be unfounded in a recent analysis from the UK’s University of Leeds. The main database on which most outbreak analyses rely, the GIDEON database, shows a reduction in natural outbreaks and resultant mortality over the past 10 to 15 years, with the prior increase between 1960 and 2000 fully consistent with the development of the technologies necessary to detect and record such outbreaks; PCR, antigen and serology tests, and genetic sequencing.

The WHO does not refute this but simply ignores it. Nipah viruses, for example, only ‘emerged’ in the late 1990s when we found ways to actually detect them. Now we can readily distinguish new variants of coronavirus to promote uptake of pharmaceuticals. The risk does not change by detecting them; we just change the ability to notice them. We also have the ability to modify viruses to make them worse – this is a relatively new problem. But do we really want an organization influenced by China, with North Korea on its executive board (insert your favorite geopolitical rivals), to manage a future bioweapons emergency?

Irrespective of growing evidence that Covid-19 was not a natural phenomenon, modelling that the World Bank quotes as suggesting a 3x increase in outbreaks over the next decade actually predicts that a Covid-like event will recur less than once per century. Diseases that the WHO uses to suggest an increase in outbreaks over the past 20 years, including cholera, plague, yellow fever, and influenza variants were orders of magnitude worse in past centuries.

This all makes it doubly confusing that the WHO is breaking its own legal requirements in order to push through a vote without Member States having time to properly review implications of the proposals. The urgency must be for reasons other than public health need. Others can speculate why, but we are all human and all have egos to protect, even when preparing legally binding international agreements.

Low Relative Burden

The burden (e.g. death rate or life years lost) of acute outbreaks is a fraction of the overall disease burden, far lower than many endemic infectious diseases such as malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis, and a rising burden of non-communicable disease. Few natural outbreaks over the past 20 years have resulted in more than 1,000 deaths – or 8 hours of tuberculosis mortality. Higher-burden diseases should dominate public health priorities, however dull or unprofitable they may seem.

With the development of modern antibiotics, major outbreaks from the big scourges of the past like Plague and typhus ceased to occur. Though influenza is caused by a virus, most deaths are also due to secondary bacterial infections. Hence, we have not seen a repeat of the Spanish flu in over a century. We are better at healthcare than we used to be and have improved nutrition (generally) and sanitation. Widespread travel has eliminated the risks of large immunologically naive populations, making our species more immunologically resilient. Cancer and heart disease may be increasing, but infectious diseases overall are declining. So where should we focus?

Lack of Evidence Base

Investment in public health requires both evidence (or high likelihood) that the investment will improve outcomes and an absence of significant harm. The WHO has demonstrated neither with their proposed interventions. Neither has anyone else. The lockdown and mass vaccination strategy promoted for Covid-19 resulted in a disease that predominantly affects elderly sick people leading to 15 million excess deaths, even increasing mortality in young adults. In past acute respiratory outbreaks, things got better after one or perhaps two seasons, but with Covid-19 excess mortality persisted.

Within public health, this would normally mean we check whether the response caused the problem. Especially if it’s a new type of response, and if past understanding of disease management predicted that it would. This is more reliable than pretending that past knowledge did not exist. So again, the WHO (and other public-private partnerships) are not following orthodox public health, but something quite different.

Centralization for a Highly Heterogeneous Problem

Twenty-five years ago, before private investors became so interested in public health, it was accepted that decentralization was sensible. Providing local control to communities that could then prioritize and tailor health interventions themselves can provide better outcomes. Covid-19 underlined the importance of this, showing how uneven the impact of an outbreak is, determined by population age, density, health status, and many other factors. To paraphrase the WHO, ‘Most people are safe, even when some are not.’

However, for reasons that remain unclear to many, the WHO decided that the response for a Toronto aged care resident and a young mother in a Malawian village should be essentially the same – stop them from meeting family and working, then inject them with the same patented chemicals. The WHO’s private sponsors, and even the two largest donor countries with their strong pharmaceutical sectors, agreed with this approach. So too did the people paid to implement it. It was really only history, common sense, and public health ethics that stood in the way, and they proved much more malleable.

Absence of Prevention Strategies Through Host Resilience

The WHO IHR amendments and Pandemic Agreement are all about detection, lockdowns, and mass vaccination. This would be good if we had nothing else. Fortunately, we do. Sanitation, better nutrition, antibiotics, and better housing halted the great scourges of the past. An article in the journal Nature in 2023 suggested that just getting vitamin D at the right level may have cut Covid-19 mortality by a third. We already knew this and can speculate on why it became controversial. It’s really basic immunology.

Nonetheless, nowhere within the proposed US$30+ billion annual budget is any genuine community and individual resilience supported. Imagine putting a few billion more into nutrition and sanitation. Not only would you dramatically reduce mortality from occasional outbreaks, but more common infectious diseases, and metabolic diseases such as diabetes and obesity, would also go down. This would actually reduce the need for pharmaceuticals. Imagine a pharmaceutical company, or investor, promoting that. It would be great for public health, but a suicidal business approach.

Conflicts of Interest

All of which brings us, obviously, to conflicts of interest. The WHO, when formed, was essentially funded by countries through a core budget, to address high-burden diseases on country request. Now, with 80% of its use of funds specified directly by the funder, its approach is different. If that Malawian village could stump up tens of millions for a program, they would get what they ask for. But they don’t have that money; Western countries, Pharma, and software moguls do.

Most people on earth would grasp that concept far better than a public health workforce heavily incentivized to think otherwise. This is why the World Health Assembly exists and has the ability to steer the WHO in directions that don’t harm their populations. In its former incarnation, the WHO considered conflict of interest to be a bad thing. Now, it works with its private and corporate sponsors, within the limits set by its Member States, to mold the world to their liking.

The Question Before Member States

To summarize, while it’s sensible to prepare for outbreaks and pandemics, it’s even more sensible to improve health. This involves directing resources to where the problems are and using them in a way that does more good than harm. When people’s salaries and careers become dependent on changing reality, reality gets warped. The new pandemic proposals are very warped. They are a business strategy, not a public health strategy. It is the business of wealth concentration and colonialism – as old as humanity itself.

The only real question is whether the majority of the Member States of the World Health Assembly, in their voting later this month, wish to promote a lucrative but rather amoral business strategy, or the interests of their people.

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.



  • David Bell

    David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

    from:    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-whos-proposed-pandemic-agreements-worsen-public-health/

SOme Posters vis-a-vis the WHO “Treaty”

CHECK OUT:    https://doortofreedom.org/posters-and-memes/  for more

Shareables and Printables!

Our wonderful graphics article Dove has customized this meme of Tedros squeezing our world  in the language and with the flag of as many countries we could.  If you would like your country included, please tell us how to say “Our world, not His” in your language and we will include it. Please contact us

Source: Dove from The World Doctors Alliance

Source: Sovereignty Coalition

from:    https://doortofreedom.org/posters-and-memes/

And The Power Grab Continues


Dr. Peter McCullough Warns of ‘One-World Government Coming Our Way’

“This is all prima facie evidence that we see a worldwide power grab going on.”


“The next pandemic is not a matter of if but of when,” says WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Klaus Schwab, the WEF, and the so-called global elites gathered for a 5-day annual meeting in Davos from January 15-19. One of the topics on their agenda that raised some eyeballs was “Preparing for Disease X.”

COVID has been reported, although likely inflated, to have claimed approximately 7 million lives worldwide, but “Disease X,” on the other hand, they warn, “could result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic.”

Dr. McCullough Responds

“The first question we’d ask is, well, how do they know?” contested esteemed cardiologist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough on Real America’s Voice. “We know that the SARS-CoV-2 virus came out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Probably the next biological threat — there’s manuscripts published on this — again, will come out of these biolabs,” he added.

As such, Dr. McCullough argued, “Shouldn’t we shut down these dangerous biological programs so we don’t have another worldwide disaster?”

However, he claimed, “They [WHO and WEF] are dreaming about more vaccines, antibodies, therapeutics, and worldwide control based on Disease X, as opposed to eliminating Disease X or any potential biological threat that could come our way.”

Why is that? “The short answer is,” Dr. McCullough says, “there’s too much money in it.

“The money now in this biological threat countermeasure world is enormous,” he continued. “We found that out with COVID-19, and we see all kinds of runaway programs. Moderna has 31 messenger RNA vaccines — 31,” Dr. McCullough stressed.

“The first sets of messenger RNA vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, have not turned out well at all. They didn’t stop Covid, and they haven’t been proven to be safe. 31 [messenger RNA shots] coming our way now … So this biopharmaceutical complex that’s formed has really figured out how to run the table.”

Power Grab

On the topic of Disease X, Dr. McCullough was asked, “How much of this is just a power grab by big pharma and globalists?”

I think it is a power grab,” he answered. “Look at what happened with COVID, then right into respiratory syncytial virus, right into Disease X, and it doesn’t stop there. A climate crisis by which all kinds of things are happening.”

Dr. McCullough added that farmer protests are sweeping across Europe because farmers are fed with crippling policies based on “a theoretical climate crisis.”

“This is all,” Dr. McCullough thinks, “prima facie evidence that we see a worldwide power grab going on — one-world government coming our way.”

from:    https://vigilantnews.com/post/dr-peter-mccullough-warns-of-one-world-government-coming-our-way/


Christine Anderson, German MP, Has a Few Words for the WHO

“We Will Bring You Down”: German MP Vows To Dismantle WHO’s Grip On Governments

MONDAY, JUL 17, 2023 – 08:44 AM

German MP Christine Anderson last week shredded the World Health Organization, calling it a group of “globalitarian misanthropists” who she – and a group of seven other MPs, have vowed to dismantle in order to oppose the WHO supplanting democratically elected governments.

“An unelected body like who is controlled and run by multi-billionaires should never be allowed to act in place of a democratically elected government,” she said during the Citizen’s Initiative conference in Brussels.

Anderson says she’ll expose and name any individuals, including government officials and parliamentarians, who support the WHO ‘power grab’ and disrespect democracy.

“It is you [WHO] that is the small fringe minority,” she continued. “You are the ones who do not have the right to dictate to the people what they want and what they don’t want.”

“So take it from me … take it from the millions and millions of people around the world. We will bring you down, and we will not tire until we have done just that. So brace yourselves. We are here, and the fight is on. So let’s have the fight.”


from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/we-will-bring-you-down-german-mp-vows-dismantle-whos-grip-governments

Aspartame – Not So Sweet After All

Top Sweetener Officially Declared a Carcinogen

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
aspartame carcinogenic effects


  • The World Health Organization has finally gotten around to declaring the popular artificial sweetener aspartame a potential carcinogen
  • The ruling comes from sources with WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who said aspartame will be listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in July 2023
  • I’ve been warning about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential since 2010, so you can see just how long this danger has been known
  • For over a decade, researchers have been warning of aspartame’s neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity, stating reevaluation of aspartame consumption is “urgent and cannot be delayed”
  • A 2022 large-scale cohort study found people who consumed higher levels of artificial sweeteners had higher risk of overall cancer compared to non-consumers

The World Health Organization has finally gotten around to declaring the popular artificial sweetener aspartame a potential carcinogen.1 I warned about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential on my site over 25 years ago, in my best-selling book, “Sweet Deception: Why Splenda, NutraSweet, and the FDA May Be Hazardous to Your Health,” in 2006, and in an article I wrote for The Huffington Post.2 It’s since been deleted — but you can see just how long this danger has been known.

The ruling comes from sources with WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who said aspartame will be listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in July 2023.3 Additional findings from the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization’s Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which is in the process of updating its aspartame risk assessment, are also expected.4

Donald Rumsfeld’s Hand in Aspartame’s Approval

JECFA has vouched for aspartame’s safety for decades, stating since 1981 that it’s safe when consumed within accepted daily limits.5 It was 1981 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved aspartame.6 At the time, the late Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. secretary of defense, was chairman of G.D. Searle, aspartame’s manufacturer, and he was reportedly instrumental in its approval.

At a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, the FDA had refused to approve aspartame due to concerns that it could induce brain tumors.7 The late John Olney, a renowned neuroscientist who tried to prevent aspartame’s approval, also wrote a letter to the Board of Inquiry in 1987, warning of aspartame’s neurotoxicity, including the potential for brain tumors and damage to children’s brains.8 As reported by Rense.com:9

“The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld … vow to ‘call in his markers,’10 to get it approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision.

It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.

Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”

Aspartame’s Cancer Link Known for Decades

Despite aspartame’s approval, by 1987 a series of investigative reports raised concerns that the chemical’s approval was mired by conflicts of interest, poor quality industry-funded research and revolving-door relationships between the FDA and the food industry.11

By 1996, a team with the department of psychiatry at Washington University Medical School questioned whether increasing brain tumor rates had an aspartame connection. “An exceedingly high incidence of brain tumors” has been identified in aspartame-fed rats compared to rats not fed aspartame, they explained, adding:12

“Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors.”

Then, in 2006, a study led by Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher from Italy who’s the head of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, found that, even in low doses, animals were developing several different forms of cancer when fed aspartame.13

That year, the team concluded aspartame was a “multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake” and stated a reevaluation of aspartame consumption was “urgent and cannot be delayed.”14

A 2007 follow-up study confirmed the findings of aspartame’s “multipotential carcinogenicity,” even at doses close to the acceptable daily intake for humans. Further, it also demonstrated that when lifespan exposure beginning in utero was assessed, aspartame’s “carcinogenic effects are increased.”15 In 2010, Soffritti and colleagues again warned that aspartame was a carcinogenic agent in rats and mice.16

Research Supporting Aspartame’s Carcinogenicity Is Widespread

These studies were only the beginning of the evidence showing aspartame’s cancer-causing potential. In 2012, Harvard researchers published a study in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found:17

“In the most comprehensive long-term epidemiologic study, to our knowledge, to evaluate the association between aspartame intake and cancer risk in humans, we observed a positive association between diet soda and total aspartame intake and risks of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] and multiple myeloma in men and leukemia in both men and women.”

Adding further concerns over aspartame’s safety, U.S. Right to Know reported:18

“In a 2014 commentary in American Journal of Industrial Medicine,19 the [Cesare] Maltoni [Cancer Research] Center researchers wrote that the studies submitted by G. D. Searle for market approval ‘do not provide adequate scientific support for [aspartame’s] safety.

In contrast, recent results of life-span carcinogenicity bioassays on rats and mice published in peer-reviewed journals, and a prospective epidemiological study, provide consistent evidence of [aspartame’s] carcinogenic potential.’”

A 2020 study further supports the Ramazzini Institute’s (RI) original findings, revealing a statistically significant increase in total hematopoietic and lymphoid tissue tumors (HLTs) and total leukemias and lymphomas in female rats exposed to aspartame.

“After the HLT cases re-evaluation, the results obtained are consistent with those reported in the previous RI publication and reinforce the hypothesis that APM [aspartame] has a leukemogenic and lymphomatogenic effect,” the researchers explained.20

Again in 2021, a review of the Ramazzini Institute data further confirmed that aspartame is carcinogenic in rodents. The researchers noted that their findings “confirm the very worrisome finding that prenatal exposure to aspartame increases cancer risk in rodent offspring. They validate the conclusions of the original RI studies.”21

In response, they called on national and international public health agencies to reexamine aspartame’s health risks, particularly prenatal and early postnatal exposures.22

WHO Warns Against Artificial Sweeteners for Weight Control

Aspartame’s cancer link is especially concerning given its prevalence in diet foods and drinks. Aspartame is used in 1,400 food products in France and more than 6,000 products around the globe. The chemical is commonly found in food products such as sugar-free gum, diet drink mixes and sodas, reduced-sugar condiments and tabletop sweeteners, including Equal and NutraSweet.26

Its high level of sweetness — 200 times greater than sugar27 — and low calories makes it popular among people looking to make their drinks and meals sweeter without the calories of a comparable amount of sugar.

But, in addition to labeling the artificial sweetener as possibly carcinogenic, in May 2023, even the beyond-corrupted WHO released a guideline advising not to use non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) for weight control because they don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children.28

Previously, WHO conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that revealed “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”29

The systematic review also suggested “potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.” Even cancer was called out in analysis, which included 283 studies and found artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of:30

Obesity Type 2 diabetes
High fasting glucose All-cause mortality
Cardiovascular events Death from cardiovascular disease
Stroke High blood pressure
Bladder cancer Preterm birth and possible adiposity in offspring later in life

Further, according to the WHO study:31

“Mechanisms by which NSS as a class of molecules might exert effects that increase risk for obesity and certain NCDs [non-communicable diseases] have been reviewed extensively and include interaction with extra-oral taste receptors, possibly with alteration of the gut microbiome.

Because sugars and all known NSS presumably elicit sweet taste through the TAS1R heterodimeric sweet-taste receptor, which has been identified not just in the oral cavity but in other glucose-sensing tissues, it is not surprising that such a group of vastly different chemical entities could be responsible for similar effects on health.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/14/aspartame-carcinogenic-effects.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230714_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1432971&rid=1855621420

Freedom to Choose

It Is Time to Declare Our Independence From the Vaccinators

Analysis by Barbara Loe FisherFact Checked
time to declare independence from vaccinators


  • On July 4, 2023, it will have been 247 years since the Declaration of Independence was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and signed by delegates of 13 American colonies formally declaring independence from political control by the King of England
  • One of the most primal human fears is fear of death, and the science experts calling the shots in government health agencies and at the United Nations, especially the World Health Organization, along with their Big Pharma, Big Tech and other Big Money partners, know that
  • Vaccine products atypically manipulate the immune system by stimulating an acute inflammatory response in the body but, in an unknown number of people, that inflammation does not resolve
  • If the last three years taught us nothing else, we now know it is time to declare our independence from the Vaccinators and take back individual sovereignty, our right to autonomy, before it is too late
  • There is really only one way to free ourselves from the Vaccinators and that is to eliminate one-size-fits-all vaccination laws

On July 4, 2023, it will have been 247 years since the Declaration of Independence was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and signed by delegates of 13 American colonies formally declaring independence from political control by the King of England.1

“Light and liberty go together” said Jefferson2 and, in his final letter to John Adams before he and Adams both died on July 4, 1826, Jefferson predicted that no despot or tyrannical empire in the future would be able to crush the human spirit of resistance that guards liberty.

A fierce proponent of individual rights,3 Jefferson said, “The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776 have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism. On the contrary, they will consume these engines, and all who work them.”4,5

Was Jefferson’s prediction right? Or, as one of the earliest and most influential proponents of smallpox inoculation,6 could he never have imagined that the scientific and medical professions he loved so well7 would one day forge lucrative global business partnerships with industry and government and create a public health empire that has become a much greater threat to liberty than the monarchy he and his fellow revolutionaries rebelled against in 1776?8,9,10

After my son was injured in 1980 by the crude, toxic whole cell pertussis vaccine in DPT shots,11 I joined with other parents of DPT vaccine injured children in 1982 to establish the charity known today as the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) with the mission of preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education.12,13 We have defended the legal right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination for 41 years.14,15

Since then, I have watched the public health empire grow and use “no exceptions” vaccination laws as the tip of the spear in the great culture war gripping this and other nations around the world. It is an ideological and political war that has been going on since the 19th century,16,17 pitting those who believe in the right to autonomy and liberty against those who believe in centralized, authoritarian government control.18,19,20,21

How it ends will define what freedom means for human populations around the world during this and many centuries to come. What is at stake is whether or not our physical BODY, which houses our mind and soul, will continue to be regulated, altered and used without our voluntary consent to achieve goals pursued by national governments or, as some are predicting, a future one-world government.22,23

The New Aristocracy: Privileged ‘Experts’ Call the Shots

The most vocal proponents of forced vaccination have always filled the ranks of professions that require possession of an advanced academic degree — such as an M.D., Ph.D., J.D. — or other honorific title that automatically confers an elevated status in society with all the respect, economic and social class benefits that come along with that privilege.24,25,26,27,28,29,30

Unlike in the 18th century when the American colonies fought for freedom from a king, power in western societies is no longer wielded by kings and queens and other aristocratic members of hereditary monarchies.

Today, power in most societies with representative democratic governments and constitutional republics is wielded by a new aristocracy, a spider web of highly paid science, medical, legal and business “experts” with big titles working for governments31 and pharmaceutical,32 medical trade,33 Big Tech,34,35 military-Industrial,36 corporate media,37,38 banking,39,40 and other institutions.41,42,43,44,45

Politicians often rely upon these titled experts — like Dr. Anthony Fauci — to tell them what to believe and do, especially when they fly under the “science” flag and declare a public health emergency.46 And, having the power to make laws that govern the rest of us, politicians are quick to exercise that power when fear of the unknown interferes with rational thinking.

One of the most primal human fears is fear of death, and the science experts calling the shots in government health agencies and at the United Nations, especially the World Health Organization, along with their Big Pharma, Big Tech and other Big Money partners, know that.47,48,49,50

When they declared a COVID pandemic emergency in the winter of 2020, they used fear of death and their “expert” status as weapons to persuade people to abandon rational thinking, believe the unbelievable, and give up liberty for the illusion of safety.

During partial or complete lockdowns, at least 4.5 billion people in over 100 countries, including 310 million Americans in 43 states, were suddenly ordered to hide in their homes.51,52,53,54 We were told to restrict our breathing with paper and plastic masks — even children as young as 2 — and to stay 6 feet away from others if we entered a public space.55

In a state of shock, we saw police taser the unmasked and dispatch drones to force people indoors.56,57 We watched politicians close restaurants, stores, gyms, parks, theaters, churches and schools, which led to isolation, mental illness and economic ruin.58,59,60

We grieved with the families blocked from holding the hands of their loved ones dying in retirement and nursing homes, and for the elderly who died in hospitals after they were automatically put on ventilators that killed most of them.61,62 We felt powerless when government health officials told doctors they could not repurpose already licensed drugs like ivermectin to prevent COVID complications or help heal the sick.63,64,65

But the biggest weapon used during the height of COVID hysteria was a very old one, one that has been around for more than 200 years. Warning that “nobody is safe until everyone is safe,”66 the experts in charge at the United Nations, World Health Organization and in government health agencies ordered every human in the world to be injected with a pharmaceutical product called a vaccine, a product sold for profit that can injure, kill or fail to work as advertised.

People were tracked, coerced and, ultimately, many were forced to get vaccinated or face severe consequences.67 No shots, no school.68 No shots, no medical care.69 No shots, no job.70,71,72 No shots, no travel.73 No shots, no life. The Vaccinators ruled with an iron fist.

According to The New York Times, more than 72% of the world’s population — some 5.5 billion people, which reportedly included about 80% percent of the U.S. population — got at least one COVID shot,74 a biological product that has racked up more than 1.5 million adverse event reports in the U.S. alone.75,76

The First Vaccinator Infected Children With Cowpox

The Vaccinators — those individuals who make, sell, license, recommend, administer, promote and mandate pharmaceutical products called “vaccines” — have been around for as long as the United States of America. The most famous Vaccinator, who is credited with inventing the concept of vaccination, was an 18th century medical doctor living in England: Edward Jenner.

As urban legend would have it, in 1796, Dr. Jenner took pus from a cowpox lesion on the skin of a milkmaid and scratched it into the arm of a healthy child in hopes that a milder cowpox infection would protect against serious cases of smallpox. It was an experimental practice that several other doctors in England had been doing for years.77,78

By the end of the 18th century, smallpox was already naturally declining in severity in London, but it could still kill between 10 and 30% and leave many scarred with pockmarks.79 Jenner and the other doctors infecting healthy children with an animal disease to prevent a human disease did not know exactly what would happen to the children they experimented on.

They didn’t know anything about what it would do to the body of an individual child at the cellular and molecular level, whether it would cause acute reactions or uncontrolled inflammation in the body80,81 or whether it would alter immune,82 heart83 or brain function,84 or affect chromosomal integrity.85

After all, medical doctors in 1796 were still ritualistically bleeding and purging people sick with smallpox and other diseases, as well as restricting nutrition. They were doing the same thing to many healthy infants and adults before performing arm-to-arm inoculation using smallpox pus, a procedure called variolation.86,87,88

How many died of smallpox back then because doctors insisted on limiting food intake and bleeding and purging them until they had little strength left to heal? There is no question that cowpox inoculation was legendary for its ability to cause severe reactions, disability and death,89 which is also true for smallpox vaccine still given to some soldiers today.90,91

With missionary zeal, Jenner and his medical colleagues ignored the protests and pleas by mothers and fathers, who watched once healthy infants and children get inoculated and be covered with open sores, while their feverish bodies became riddled with inflammation and their hearts and brains were permanently damaged, with an unknown number of them wasting away and dying within a few days or weeks or months of vaccination.92,93,94

Still, Jenner eventually was able to persuade influential doctors, especially those heading up the new profession of “public health” funded by governments, to use arm-to-arm inoculation to infect all healthy children with cowpox.

Somewhere along the way, a new animal-human hybrid vaccinia virus emerged, which scientists today argue could be part cow or part horse — nobody seems to know for sure — but routine inoculation with the live vaccinia virus was described in early medical journals as “humanized vaccination.”95,96

Vaccination Did Not Confer Lifelong Immunity

Even in the 18th century, it was known that recovery from smallpox gave a person what appeared to be lifelong immunity to the dreaded disease.97,98 Jenner considered himself to be a scientist and his unshakable belief that scratching cowpox pus into the arms of children conferred durable immunity to smallpox was eventually shown to be a myth. In fact, by 1880, the evidence confirmed that Jenner was wrong — vaccination did not confer permanent immunity.

Smallpox outbreaks were occurring in England despite compulsory vaccination laws,99 just like pertussis,100 mumps,101 measles,102,103,104 and polio105,106 outbreaks occur today, despite widespread vaccination laws. U.S. industrialist and philanthropist John Pitcairn pointed that out when he testified before the Pennsylvania legislature in 1907 against mandatory smallpox vaccination. He said:107

“Jenner began by claiming that vaccination made a person immune for life, but the facts of observation soon resulted in the term being shortened to 14 years; then it was made seven; then five; then two; and in the Spanish-American War, six months was the limit of immunity.”

Not only did smallpox vaccination not provide lifelong immunity, but live vaccinia virus vaccination could spread vaccine strain infection to other people.108 The myth that vaccination is a sure guarantee of immunity is a persistent bit of disinformation about vaccines that has been used by the Vaccinators for two centuries to justify public health policies enforcing the purchase and use of multiple doses of the same vaccines — including COVID vaccine.109,110

In 2020, that old myth played a key role in billions of people around the world believing the lie that COVID vaccine would guarantee that vaccinated people could not get infected with or transmit SARS-CoV-2.111,112

Poor Children Used in Arm-to-Arm Vaccination Campaigns

After declaring a coronavirus pandemic emergency in 2020, the Vaccinators at the World Health Organization sent out a press release proclaiming that because of smallpox vaccination campaigns, “The world got rid of smallpox thanks to an incredible demonstration of global solidarity, and because it had a safe and effective vaccine.” They said, “Solidarity plus science equaled solution!”113

But the ugly truth about the history of vaccination is that for a century after Jenner’s newfound fame, little children — mostly working class, minority and orphaned children — were used to conduct arm-to-arm anti-smallpox campaigns that had nothing to do with science.

Children were the preferred tools of the new trade because they were thought to be more “pure”: their blood usually was not infected with syphilis, tuberculosis and other diseases more common to adults at the time.

Doctors at the height of the British Empire, scratched cowpox pus into the arms of children living in the slums in England and physically transported them, sometimes in baggage holds, to colonized countries like India and parts of Africa so they could be used to infect indigenous children. Governments, as well as other social institutions, used the arm-to-arm vaccinia virus inoculation campaigns as political and social organizing tools, especially in poor communities.114

In 1870 during the Industrial Revolution, entrepreneurial doctors decided to mass produce the vaccinia virus by growing the virus on the skin of young cows, instead of young humans. They called the new product an “animal vaccine.” Vaccine “animal farms” populated by calves sprouted up all over Europe and America to make the new vaccine trade more profitable for chemical companies and doctors alike.

But there was little safety regulation of the virus being grown in calves that doctors were scratching onto the arms of infants and children, who risked suffering high fevers, encephalitis and brain damage, full body eczema vaccinatum that looks a lot like smallpox, and the lethal progressive vaccinia, which can lead to bacterial superinfection and death within weeks of months of vaccination.115

After nearly two centuries of mass vaccination campaigns, the Vaccinators declared smallpox eradicated in the late 20th century — the first and only infectious microorganism they say vaccination has eliminated from the earth. But it was the more selective approach of quarantining the sick and targeted ring vaccination of close contacts primarily responsible for doing that.116,117,118

The Vaccinators Persecute Anyone Opposing Mandatory Vaccination

The valid safety concerns of 19th and early 20th century anti-mandatory vaccination activists, like Lora Little, a Minnesota mother whose 7-year-old son died after smallpox vaccination,119 and British scientist Alfred Russel Wallace,120 co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, were ridiculed by the Vaccinators aggressively lobbying politicians to pass mandatory smallpox vaccination laws.121

Those pioneering thought leaders opposing forced vaccination developed legitimate scientific and ethical arguments that are still valid today.122,123,124 Yet, they were ridiculed, persecuted and discredited by the Vaccinators protecting the politically powerful, very profitable alliance between medical trade, the chemical industry and governments.

Just like today, the Vaccinators slapped the “anti-science” label on anyone defending medical freedom and opposing mandatory vaccination.125,126,127,128 By 1905, a Lutheran pastor who had suffered a smallpox vaccine reaction challenged mandatory smallpox vaccination.

In a seminal U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the high stakes ideological debate dominated by the Vaccinators based on a utilitarian “greater good” rationale popular in academic circles at the time prevailed.

The Supreme Court majority affirmed the constitutional authority of state legislatures to pass mandatory vaccination laws in the U.S.129 The Vaccinators took that legal victory at the turn of the 20th century and ran with it all the way to the banks funding the global Public Health Empire in the 21st century.130

By 2022, the global market for preventive vaccines was valued at over $200 billion dollars — up from $34 billion in 2017131 — with much of that revenue guaranteed to multinational drug corporations by vaccination laws. And the global pharmaceutical market had become a 1.4 trillion-dollar business, with the U.S. population paying for and using 50% — or 550 billion dollars’ worth — of all drugs and vaccines consumed in the world.132

The Vaccinators Have Waged a Two-Century War on Microorganisms

Crippled by ignorance, blinded by hubris, for more than two centuries the Vaccinators have waged a war on microorganisms, insisting that the only way to win that war is to create more and more vaccines and compel everyone to buy and use them.133,134,135 It started out with one vaccine targeting one organism.

Today the Vaccinators have declared war on 17 more microorganisms, insisting every child be given over 70 doses of vaccines136 to try to prevent infectious diseases like chickenpox137 that do not come close to being in the same category as smallpox.138 And now they want everyone to get an annual COVID shot along with an annual flu shot,139 while creating a long list of new vaccines for all kinds of infectious — as well as chronic diseases — they want everyone to take.140,141

Instead of spending money to tackle historic causes of poor health — like poverty,142 poor sanitation,143 poor nutrition,144,145 and environmental pollution,146 and developing effective ways to help people get through infections without suffering complications, the Vaccinators continue to put all their eggs in one basket.

Abandoning the precautionary principle to “first, do no harm,” with tunnel vision they desperately hold on to the 19th century vaccination paradigm and march forward in the name of consensus science147,148 and “the greater good,” taking down anyone who stands in their way.149,150,151,152,153

What Else Do Vaccines Do?

Vaccine products atypically manipulate the immune system by stimulating an acute inflammatory response in the body154 but, in an unknown number of people, that inflammation does not resolve.155,156,157,158

And nobody knows how many of the hundreds of millions of children and adults — with 1 in 2 in America now suffering with a chronic inflammatory disease159 that damages the heart, brain, lungs, joints, immune system and other parts of the body160,161 — can trace the beginning of their poor health conditions back to vaccinations that begin on the day of birth162 and continue throughout childhood and during pregnancy163 until the last year of life.

We’ve done what the Vaccinators have told us to do for two centuries. The vaccination rate among school aged children in the U.S. has been close to 95% since the 1980s.164,165

And yet, today the United States of America has the worst maternal and infant mortality rate166,167 and the worst life expectancy rate compared to other developed nations,168 while 1 child in 6 is learning disabled;169 1 in 10 has allergies,170 ADHD171,172 or an anxiety disorder;173 1 in 36 develops autism;174 1 in 150 has epilepsy;175,176 1 in 285 is diabetic;177 and millions more are suffering with poor health conditions marked by chronic inflammation in the brain and other parts of the body.178

It is a chronic disease and disability epidemic that accounts for 90 percent of the 4.1 trillion dollars in annual US health care costs.179

Where Is the Real Science?

Where are the large, prospective, long-term scientific studies comparing all morbidity and mortality outcomes in unvaccinated and highly vaccinated humans that parents of vaccine injured children asked for more than 25 years ago?180,181

Where is the big library of biological mechanism science investigating what happens to the cells and mitochondria182,183 and chromosomes?184,185

What happens to the microbiome186 and function of the heart and brain and other organs when a pharmaceutical product containing parts of live or genetically engineered human and animal viruses and bacteria, plus foreign proteins, chemicals, metals, DNA and synthetic mRNA is injected into the human body over and over and over again?187,188,189,190

No two human beings are exactly the same, so where ARE the methodologically sound studies that explain how genetics,191 epigenetics,192,193,194 environmental factors195,196 and other influences raise or lower an individual’s risk for complications from both infectious diseases or vaccination?197,198

Where IS the REAL science that Jenner didn’t know how to do, but could have been done by now, if the Vaccinators really wanted to know the truth about “scientific” assumptions made when doctors were still slicing open veins and purging the life out of both sick and healthy people two centuries ago?

Why have we accepted vaccination as the greatest medical invention in the history of medicine199 instead of holding the Vaccinators accountable for what may be the biggest lie in the history of medicine?

And even if vaccination IS the greatest invention in the history of medicine, anyone with the power to force you to alter and risk damaging your body or the body of your minor child without your voluntary, informed consent has too much power,200 because if the state can tag, track down and force individuals to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

Taking Back Individual Sovereignty From the Vaccinators

If the last three years taught us nothing else, we now know it is time to declare our independence from the Vaccinators and take back individual sovereignty,201 our right to autonomy,202,203,204 before it is too late. Right now, we have an opportunity to free ourselves from the chemical chains that empower the Vaccinators to change who we are, how we think, what we believe and what we can and cannot do.205,206

But we cannot liberate ourselves from those very expensive chemical chains at the national or global level unless freedom of speech is restored to its rightful place as a non-negotiable fundamental liberty for all. Under the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech means you have the right to speak, write and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government.

Freedom of speech has been muzzled in the U.S. and many other countries since 2020 at the direction of the Vaccinators controlling policymaking in governments and at the United Nations, who have put pressure on private corporations operating the WorldWideWeb and media to end all public debate about mandatory vaccination.207,208,209

If the Vaccinators have to resort to censoring freedom of speech because they are so afraid of what the people really think about vaccination, then they have already lost the debate.

I believe Jefferson was right. The flames of liberty kindled on the 4th of July 1776 have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by petty tyrants in governments and at the United Nations determined to exploit the people for power and profit.

It is time to publicly question why mandatory vaccination has been made the cornerstone of preventive health programs since the 19th century, when highly vaccinated populations are sicker than ever in the 21st century. It’s time to clear the way for more rational, enlightened approaches to maintaining health and wellness that work in harmony with nature instead of branding every infectious disease as an enemy to be eradicated from the earth.210,211,212

What Can Be Done?

There is really only one way to free ourselves from the Vaccinators and that is to eliminate one-size-fits-all vaccination laws.213,214 Like every other pharmaceutical product sold in the marketplace, vaccines should be subject to the law of supply and demand, and no one should be penalized in any way for making an informed choice about use of a product that can injure, kill or fail to work, and is sold by drug companies with no liability when people die or are disabled by the product.215

In the U.S., most vaccine laws are state laws and at NVIC, we have been working with families and state legislatures since 2010 through the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal to stop vaccine mandates and electronic vaccine tracking systems, and to expand medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions.216

We are committed to helping you protect the legal right to get a school education, receive medical care, have health insurance, hold a job and move about freely in society without being coerced or sanctioned for exercising informed consent to vaccination.

The years of hard work we have been doing in the states paid off big time in 2021 when every one of the 50 state legislatures in the U.S. refused to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. It was a victory that should not be underestimated.

There has never been a better time to take action, so please sign up and take action at NVICAdvocacy.org today and join this historic fight for independence.

What else can you do? You can educate your community and participate in improving government at every level — from getting involved in elections for school boards, city and country councils and sheriffs — to showing up at the polls in state and federal elections. You can run for office yourself or make sure those who do run have integrity and are committed to defending civil liberties, including the right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination.

We need to elect lawmakers who will call a halt to the pay-for-play scheme that Congress gave the pharmaceutical industry decades ago and stop drug companies from paying the FDA217,218 to cut corners and fast-track their experimental drugs and vaccines to market — like the notoriously reactive and ineffective mRNA COVID vaccine that already has netted Pfizer and Moderna a staggering $100 billion.219,220,221

We need a law to stop the revolving door between Big Pharma and government agencies222,223,224,225 so the Vaccinators can’t go to work for drug companies and then work for government, and then go back to working for drug companies, whose products they were regulating and promoting when they worked for government.

We need a law prohibiting research scientists employed by government agencies in public-private business partnerships with Pharma from holding patents on vaccines they create with drug companies,226,227 so they can profit from sales of those vaccines whether they continue working for government or quit and work for drug companies.

The U.S. is only one of two countries that allows direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies,228,229 which is why every other ad on TV is selling prescription drugs and promoting vaccines. We need a law that unhooks mainstream media from their Pharma paymasters, so the media have more incentive to tell the truth instead of spewing out disinformation produced by the Vaccinators.

We need Congress to restore the civil liability provisions that were originally in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act when it was passed in 1986 holding negligent doctors accountable for medical malpractice and holding drug companies liable for defectively designed vaccines.230

It is shameful that the historic law, which acknowledged government licensed and recommended childhood vaccines can cause injury and death, was gutted after it was passed by weakening amendments and rule-making by federal agencies that eliminated many of the vaccine safety, liability and federal compensation provisions that parents had worked so hard to secure in it.231

We need Congress to conduct an investigation into and overhaul operation of the Department of Health and Human Services, including taking away oversight on vaccine safety and public health research priorities and putting it into an independent agency that reports directly to Congress.232,233

We need state legislatures to stop mandating vaccines and stop creating electronic vaccine tracking systems lacking informed consent protections,234 and stop passing laws that allow doctors to pressure young children to get vaccinated without the knowledge or consent of their parents.235

We need elected state representatives to take back their power to make public health law instead of turning over that power to unelected employees working in public health departments.236 And, we need laws prohibiting doctors from denying medical care to children and adults solely based on their vaccination status.237,238,239

There is a lot that can be done to break the chemical chains that tie the people to the Vaccinators from the day of birth to the last year of life — but only if we stop taking our freedom for granted and expecting someone else to do it for us.

You have the God-given right to autonomy, the right to protect the biological integrity of your body and that of your minor child. You have the natural right to exercise freedom of thought and to use your gut instincts, mother’s intuition and common sense when making a benefit-risk decision about taking a medical risk. Don’t be afraid to say “no” to a doctor or anyone pressuring you to take a vaccine or give your child a vaccine you do not consider to be safe or effective.

You have the civil right to exercise freedom of speech. Don’t be afraid to talk to your family, friends and lawmakers about why you think it is important to defend freedom of speech and the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking, which includes vaccine risk taking.

We can all do something every day — no matter how big or small — to protect the beating heart of liberty. Contact NVIC and join the revolution. Make a donation. Take action.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/04/time-to-declare-independence-from-vaccinators.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20230704_HL2&mid=DM1427812&rid=1846486881

Food Control

Get Your One Health Token From the World Health Organization

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked


  • The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with health and medical fields
  • The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that dictate what you eat
  • Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, which is being put in place to ultimately screen, track and control people through food, according to investigative journalist Corey Lynn
  • The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative, which includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals
  • Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the “necessity” of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet

The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with the health insurance and medical fields. The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that both dictate what you eat and have the power to impose penalties if you stray too far off course.

“How do you get people to break? Control their food and money,” investigative journalist Corey Lynn explains. “What is the weapon? Controlling your identity through digital means. The smart phone, QR codes, digital identities, biometrics, AI, and chips are all weapons being used against humanity.”1 You can listen to Corey discuss this on Spotify by going to her channel Dig It! Episode #189.2

Are Food Tokens in Your Future?

It was October 2022 when the WHO announced its One Health Joint Plan of Action, launched by the Quadripartite, which, in addition to WHO, consists of the:3

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
  • World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE)

“The Quadripartite will join forces to leverage the needed resources in support of the common approach to address critical health threats and promote the health of people, animals, plants and the environment,” according to a WHO press release.4

Echoing this statement, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “a transformation of the world’s food systems is needed urgently, based on a One Health approach that protects and promotes the health of humans, animals and the planet.”

Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, including from the White House,5 which isn’t nearly as holistic as it sounds. Instead, “food is medicine” is the phrase “being used to campaign, launch programs, change policies and financing, aggregate data, tie the health care industry in with the food supply, and ultimately screen, track and control people through food,” Lynn says.6

It’s a smokescreen, under which more people will be ushered into the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), and similar initiatives so digital food tokens can be implemented. This allows for the tracking and control of people’s food purchases.

A number of big names have recently joined in the push to increase SNAP enrollment, including Google, which intends to make it easier to find out eligibility and apply for the program.

Other partners include Instacart, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food Industry Association. Benefits Data Trust is also working to help facilitate the enrollment of college students into SNAP, Medicaid and the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides help to obtain internet access.

Again, these seemingly altruistic plans have an ulterior motive — surveillance and control. “Food, health care and internet may seem like a wonderful free benefit, until a college student tries to get their first cheeseburger, doesn’t get the Covid jab, or puts out ‘misinformation’ on the internet,” Lynn says. “Watch how quickly it’s all taken away. It’s like making a deal with the Devil.”7

It’s All a Trap

Once you’re locked into receiving food tokens, you’ve fallen into their trap. Who’s “their”? Lynn has previously described key organizations pulling strings behind the scenes, allowing them to “operate as ghosts without transparency or accountability.”8 These powerful organizations enjoy unrestricted privileges and layers of immunity, allowing them to exert control over the globe.

“These aren’t just ordinary organizations,” Lynn explains. “They happen to be the prime organizations that run the new world order globalists’ agendas against humanity, and they have hundreds of NGOs working with and through them.”9 The roll-out of “healthy eating tokens” isn’t just a possibility.

They’ve already been woven into key propaganda pieces, like this 2018 image below from the Illinois Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Task Force:10,11 “Whereas this example may be reflective of a welfare applicant,” Lynn says, “make no mistake, this is the goal all states are trying to accomplish for all people, not just those on welfare.”12

social benefits distribution

Pitfalls of White House’s $8 Billion Commitment

In line with WHO’s One Health, the White House laid out a Fact Sheet detailing its “transformational vision for ending hunger and reducing diet-related disease by 2030 – all while closing disparities among the communities that are impacted most.”13

The initiative intends to invest in “new businesses and new ways of screening for and integrating nutrition into health care delivery,” along with devoting at least $2.5 billion to startup companies “pioneering solutions to hunger and food insecurity.” Another $4 billion is earmarked for “philanthropy that improves access to nutritious food, promotes healthy choices and increases physical activity.”

Here again we have the smoke-and-mirrors effect, which masks the integration of food and health as a means to enact broad policies of control. As Lynn reports:14

“A helping hand is always nice, until it has ulterior motives. Sure, physical activity for all and the reduction of sugar in food items are both welcome approaches, but the rest of this agenda is not in the best interest of human beings.

The problem is, when reviewing this Fact Sheet it may seem like a good idea, just as while reviewing a single white paper from the WEF [World Economic Forum] could even sound like it has the potential to be a good thing.

However, when one takes the Fact Sheet with countless white papers, websites, funding, and other internal documents and puts it all together — it paints quite a different story. They know full well that most people won’t gather all of the pieces of the puzzle so they won’t be able to see the reality of the situation and discern the true agenda. That’s why it is so critical to do just that.”

The White House intends to work with a long list of private organizations to reach its goals. The American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Commission, National Grocers Association, Food Industry Association and the Rockefeller Foundation are among them.

Globalists Team Up to Tell You What to Eat

The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative.15 It includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals,16 which sound good in theory. But entities like the Rockefeller Foundation aren’t looking to further the reach of small farmers producing real, healthy food.

Consider the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which was launched in 2006 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With strategies centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers, AGRA’s influence significantly worsened the situation in the 18 African nations targeted by this “philanthropic” endeavor. Hunger under AGRA’s direction increased by 30% and rural poverty rose dramatically.17

The Green Revolution is another Rockefeller Foundation-funded conversion of natural farming to a system dependent on chemicals, fossil fuels and industry. You can expect that under this Food is Medicine initiative, genetic engineering, lab-grown meat and, eventually, insects will take center stage. Plus, it’s another tool for integrating food under health care, so you can ultimately be tracked with one digital health passport. Lynn says:18

“Of course food is medicine, but that’s not the true intention of this initiative. By integrating food under medicine just imagine how this will change the landscape of the control mechanisms being put in place under the guise of health care.

This isn’t the only avenue the Rockefeller’s are using to orchestrate this shift in food control. They are also one of the major funders of the Center for Good Food Purchasing, along with W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Panta Rhea Foundation, Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, and the 11th Hour Project — the grant-making vehicle of the Schmidt Family Foundation — former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

The stated goal of this “Center” is to manage the Good Food Purchasing Program, which is all about getting institutions to convert over to their “supply chain transparency from farm to fork and shift towards a values-based purchasing model.”

Converting schools, hospitals, and public administrations is a strong goal, for starters. They’ve established standards, certifications, and a point system as the first of its kind and are building local and national partners as quickly as they built the website.”

Meanwhile, they’re rolling out Food is Medicine courses at hospitals and universities in order to indoctrinate health care providers into this plan. Among the training will be “screening for nutrition” and instruction on how to refer patients to their community nutrition resources, likely along with education on the “benefits” of gene-edited foods and fake meat.19

What Happens if You Veer From Their Prescribed Diet?

Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the necessity of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet. It’s important to share knowledge with your circle about the pitfalls of these foods and why traditional whole foods are truly what your body needs.

If the powers-that-be take control of the food supply and dictate what people can and can’t eat, humanity is threatened. Envision a world in which your weekly groceries are only released if you’ve met certain requirements, and even then, those groceries are made up of what they ration for your use.

“Imagine if one refuses to eat bugs — they may not receive proper health care,” Lynn says. “Or what happens if one refuses to go on the food token program and only eat as instructed? Did they just lose their ability to receive health care? … What happens if edible vaccines hit the market and they try to make it mandatory as part of one’s diet?”20

To fight back, continue to source food from small, local sources instead of multinational corporations — and pay for your food with cash. As Lynn reports:21

“Just as with their other agendas that all tie into this one, the narrative control is being piped out by universities, medical associations, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and many others to bring a whole new outlook on what a nutritional diet should look like to prevent disease.

It’s as though a complete overhaul is being done on what’s ‘good’ for human beings to ingest, and gene-edited produce, insects, and cultured cells seem to be the top priority.

This may seem like a slow burn, but they are clicking multiple pieces of the structure into place simultaneously, and when that burn finally reaches inside people’s homes, in their cabinets, fridge, and wallets, it will be too late to rollback all of the policies and regulations that have locked into place.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/27/who-one-health-approach.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230627&mid=DM1423741&rid=1840084123

What’s Your Status?

The Federal Government Is Tracking the Unvaccinated

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact CheckedSorry Aspiring Masters: You Don’t Own Us


  • The U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • The program was implemented April 1, 2022, and adopted by most medical clinics and hospitals across the U.S. until January 2023
  • Under this program, doctors at clinics and hospitals have been instructed to ask patients about their vaccination status, which is then added to their electronic medical records as a diagnostic code, known as ICD-10 code, so that they can be tracked inside and outside of the medical system
  • These new ICD-10 codes are part of the government’s plan to implement medical tyranny using vaccine passports and digital IDs
  • They’re also tracking noncompliance with all other recommended vaccines using new ICD-10 codes, and have implemented codes to describe WHY you didn’t get a recommended vaccine. They’ve also added a billable ICD code for “vaccine safety counseling”

As recently discovered and reported by Dr. Robert Malone,1 the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The program was implemented April 1, 2022,2 but didn’t become universally adopted by most medical clinics and hospitals across the U.S. until January 2023.

Under this program, doctors at clinics and hospitals have been instructed to ask patients about their vaccination status, which is then added to their electronic medical records as a diagnostic code, known as ICD-10 code, without their knowledge or consent so that they can be tracked — not just within the health care system but outside of it as well.

Secret Tracking Program Revealed

The new International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes were introduced during the September 14-15, 2021, ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting. The ICD committee includes representatives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the NCHS.3

Below is a screenshot of page 194 of the agenda4 distributed during that meeting. According to the NCHS, “there is interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized,” and they figured out a way to do just that, by adding new ICD-10 codes.

As you can see below, ICD-10 code Z28.310 identifies those who have not received a COVID jab and Z28.311 identifies those who are not up-to-date on their shots.

icd-10 code

Tracking Unjabbed Is Part of the Biosecurity Agenda

Why do they want to track the unvaccinated? For what purpose? The short answer: to facilitate the implementation of vaccine passports. As noted by Malone:5

“Code Number Z28.310 listed above is not a code for an illness or diagnosis, but rather for non-compliance of a medical procedure … Once a person’s vaccination status is coded and uploaded into large data base, it can be accessed by government and private health insurers alike.

The administrative state officers at the CDC have not made immunization status a reportable disease (yet) but immunization status is listed as one of the reasons for mandatory reporting.6 They are just one step away from being able to collect this information without your permission. Ergo: vaccine passports made easy. In this country, not having your vaccine records ‘up-to-date’ might mean:

The government will not restrict your travel, airlines will.

The government will not restrict your travel, other nations will.

The government will not restrict your travel, auto rental companies will.

The government will not restrict your travel, public transport will.

The government will not restrict your travel, private companies will.”world health organzation


World Health Organization Signed Off on Tracking Codes

The ICD codes were created by the World Health Organization, and doctors — with the exception of those in private practice who don’t accept insurance — are required to use these codes to describe a patient’s condition and the care they received during their visit.

As noted by Malone,7 the fact that the ICD system is run by the WHO is an important detail, as this means the WHO had to authorize the CDC to add these new codes. The implication is that these codes may be in use internationally and we just don’t know it yet.

The codes are entered into your electronic health record and used by insurance companies for billing purposes. They’re also used by statisticians who track and analyze national and global disease trends such as cancer and heart disease rates over time.

Over the past decade, these statistical analyses have gotten easier to do, thanks to the transition into electronic record keeping. In the U.S., the ICD coding system has been fully integrated into the electronic health record system since 2012.

Within the ICD-10 codes, there’s a category called ICD-10-CM,8,9 and this is the category the CDC is now using to track the unvaccinated with specific codes for “Unvaccinated for COVID-19”10 and “Partially Vaccinated For COVID-19.”11

Gross Violation of Medical Privacy Rights

Since there’s no billing or payment involved with being unvaccinated, and since being unvaccinated is extremely unlikely to be part of your disease profile, there’s no valid reason to record anyone’s vaccine refusal. It’s also a violation of medical privacy, as the records can be accessed by a variety of individuals and not just your personal doctors.

As noted by Malone, a person’s decision to get a vaccine or not is a private matter, and your privacy rights are enshrined in the Privacy Act of 1974. However, during the COVID pandemic, medical privacy rights have been repeatedly violated and broken.

Children’s’ vaccination statuses were shared with schools and employers were granted the “right” to know the jab status of their employees. Private venues were even permitted to demand proof of vaccination status — all this without a single word of the law having been revoked or amended.

They’re Tracking Reasons for Jab Refusal Too

If you need proof that these codes will be used for reasons unrelated to your health, consider this: They’re also using codes to describe WHY you didn’t get the primary series or stopped getting boosters. Those codes are listed in the screenshot below, under Z28.3 Underimmunization Status.12

icd-10-cm tabular instructions

The use of “delinquent immunization status” under code Z28.39 also tells us something about where this is all headed. “Delinquent” means being “neglectful of a duty” or being “guilty of an offense.” Is refusing boosters a criminal offense? Perhaps not today, but some day, it probably will be.

All Missed Vaccinations Will Be Tracked

Another tipoff that these codes are part and parcel of the biosecurity control grid is the fact that code Z28.39 — “Other underimmunization status”13 — is to be used “when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.” As detailed on the American Academy of Family Physicians website:14

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have announced three new diagnosis codes, including two for COVID-19 immunization status …

ICD-10-CM Description
Z28.310 Unvaccinated for COVID-19
Z28.311 Partially vaccinated for COVID-19
Z28.39 Other under-immunization status

According to ICD-10-CM guidelines,15 clinicians may assign code Z28.310, ‘Unvaccinated for COVID-19,’ when the patient has not received a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine.

Clinicians may assign code Z28.311, ‘Partially vaccinated for COVID-19,’ when the patient has received at least one dose of a multi-dose COVID-19 vaccine regimen, but has not received the doses necessary to meet the CDC definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ at the time of the encounter … New code Z28.39 is for reporting when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.”

In other words, they have already begun tracking ALL of your vaccinations, not just the COVID shot, and they can use the Z28.3 sub-codes to identify why you refused a given vaccine.

Vaccine Passports Are a Fait Accompli — Unless We Act Now

As noted by Malone:16

“The administrative state is busy building a vaccine passport system that will be active before most Americans are aware of what is being done to them. No one is going to knock on your door asking for your vaccine status because they already know …

They don’t need approval from Congress or the courts because we have given them the information through our health care providers. The CDC is the governmental organization tasked with tracking vaccine status on individuals.

They already have the records, as well as updated booster information. They just need to tweak a definition here and there, or get President Biden to keep the COVID-19 public health emergency in place indefinitely and the vaccine passports will be a fait accompli.”

You Can Now Be Billed for Immunization Safety Counseling

As if all of that weren’t tyrannical enough, they’ve also added a billable ICD-10 code for “immunization safety counseling.” That’s right. If you’ve decided you’re not willing to partake in the mRNA experiment, or you just don’t think you need some other vaccine that’s recommended, your doctor can bill your insurance for regurgitating the WHO’s vaccine propaganda.

This may become more or less automatic because, again, they have codes identifying whether you declined the COVID jab and/or any other vaccine, and for each vaccine refusal, there’s a code detailing why you declined it. “Belief or group pressure” is one of those, and you can bet that code, Z.28.1, will automatically qualify you for immunization safety counseling, whether you want it or not.

They also intend to indoctrinate your children, and make you pay for it. The immunization safety counseling code, Z71.85, was described in the September 2021 issue of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Pediatric Coding Newsletter. You have to be a member to read the entire article, but here’s the publicly available preview:17

Reporting Encounters for Immunization Safety Counseling.

As physicians and other qualified health care professionals field increasing numbers of concerns about immunization safety, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) offers a new code, Z71.85, for identifying immunization safety counseling as a reason for an encounter provided on or after October 1, 2021.

Use this code when reporting counseling provided to patients and caregivers who are vaccine hesitant, wish to follow an alternative immunization schedule, or otherwise require time spent in counseling at lengths beyond that typical of routine immunization counseling.

Code Z71.85 may be reported to indicate the principal or first-listed reason for an encounter or as a secondary reason.

Documentation of time spent in preventive medicine counseling and separate time spent in immunization administration counseling should be explicit in the encounter note to support that the preventive medicine counseling was significant and separately identifiable.”

Unjabbed Teachers Flagged

In related news, in early February 2023 it was revealed that New York City teachers who did not get the jab were “flagged” with a “problem code” in their personnel files, triggering their fingerprints to be sent to the FBI and the New York Criminal Justice Services.18

The purpose of this is unclear, but former public school teacher Michael Kane, founder of Teachers for Choice, believes “that unvaccinated NYC educators were being set up to be viewed as ‘right-wing extremists’ or even ‘terrorists.'”

Kane was among those who got fired for refusing the COVID jab. The revelation that teachers’ fingerprints were illegally entered into not just one, but two, criminal databases “are certain to open up a new round of lawsuits,” Kane writes.

Call to Action

Knowing all of this, what can you do about it? How do we stop this madness? Here are a few suggestions:

1.Demand Congress finish what the Senate started by declaring the public health emergency over and done with. January 17, 2023, HR 382, a bill “To terminate the public health emergency declared with respect to COVID-19” was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This bill must be passed.

2.Contact your Congressional representative and let them know you:

Support the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government’s investigation.

Want Congress to reject all attempts by the administrative state, the United Nations, the WHO, Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Biden Administration to require a vaccine passport or a digital ID.

Expect them to work to ensure the freedom of travel for all citizens.

Expect them to protect Constitutional rights.

Expect them to protect all rights to privacy, including and especially medical privacy, and since these new ICD-10 codes are in violation of your right to privacy, you want them to take immediate action to ensure the codes are revoked.

With respect to what you can do to protect your medical privacy on a personal level, keep in mind that independent doctors are not required to use ICD codes unless they accept insurance. So, by choosing a doctor who is in private practice, you can avoid getting tagged and trapped in the system.

from:  https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/02/14/federal-government-tracking-unvaccinated.aspx

What Did Fauci Do?

Fauci’s Calendar: What Was He Doing in the Months Before the Pandemic?

After filing an expensive lawsuit, OpenTheBooks.com finally got the National Institutes of Health to release Dr. Anthony Fauci’s work calendar — here’s what it shows.

On Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020, at 9 a.m., Dr. Anthony Fauci joined staff at the National Security Council (NSC) — the President’s national security and foreign policy advisory shop — for a meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building about the novel coronavirus.

Fauci would continue to have meetings in classified settings throughout the month.

Fauci’s calendar entries included NSC meetings, White House Situation Room meetings and meetings in other classified settings, as COVID-19 was breaking in China. (To our knowledge, the existence of these meetings before Jan. 28, 2020, was not previously disclosed.)

On Friday, Jan. 24, four days after China admitted human-to-human transmission of the virus, Fauci started attending a small group COVID-19 discussion that first took place in “Anthony’s Office” in a building next to the White House. Anthony, in this case, appears to be an NSC employee and an expert in biodefense and China.

Flashing back to December 2019, when patients in Wuhan were showing up at hospitals with unidentified pneumonia cases, Fauci attended the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — National Institutes of Health (NIH) dinner and workshops on Dec. 19 and 20 — the sixth annual event for NIH staff and Gates Foundation executives.

On the morning of Dec. 19, billionaire Bill Gates tweeted out his own hopes for the coming year and his now prescient prediction: “one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Today, we only know about these meetings, because our organization at OpenTheBooks.com, in partnership with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch, sued the NIH in federal court. NIH had refused to even acknowledge our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

So, for the first time, here is our exclusive release of Fauci’s official calendar.

For a government bureaucrat, this sure was one tightly held calendar.

The refusal by NIH to follow open records law was a strategy to delay transparency: NIH forced us into expensive taxpayer-paid litigation to slow-walk 156 pages of semi-redacted calendar production.

Fauci’s calendar has 933 events during this five-month period — including 224 media interviews and 84 redacted events (only significant redactions that prevented analysis and understanding were counted, for example, phone number redactions were not included).

It’s a document that NIH and Fauci didn’t want you to see …

Why? What did Fauci know? And when did he know it?

Following Fauci’s timeline — highlights

Nov. 6, 2019: Fauci’s calendar lists “GPMB Discussion Note.” This likely deals with the World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Fauci is a past member of the GPMB board which was formed to “ensure[s] preparedness for global health crises.”

On Jan. 27, 2020, the GPMB convened regarding the COVID-19 outbreak and Fauci signed off on the group’s Jan. 30, 2020, statement commending the WHO and the “transparency of China.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIAs uncovered that this statement was organized and circulated by Wellcome Trust scientist and GPMB member Jeremy Farrar (who also organized a secret conference call with Fauci and others on Feb. 1, 2020).

Nov. 12, 2019: Fauci flies to the Netherlands. His multi-day itinerary is not listed. The Netherlands is home to the father of “gain-of-function,” high-risk researcher Dr. Ron Fouchier.

Fauci’s NIH institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), paused (2014) then restarted (Jan. 2019) funding to the controversial researcher who (using NIH funds) created an H5N1 bird flu in his lab with pandemic potential. He did so by passaging the virus through ferrets multiple times, until it gained a new function by going airborne and infecting a ferret in a different cage.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci joins Ambassador Deborah Birx, the Global AIDS Coordinator at a World AIDS Day evening event hosted by the Business Council for International Understanding. On Feb. 27, 2020, Birx is appointed to join Fauci on Trump’s COVID-19 Task Force.

Earlier that day, Fauci has a “Pre-Brief for US Japan Biodefense Meeting.” In 2004, as I previously reported at Forbes, Fauci received a permanent pay adjustment for his “biodefense” work. Fauci is the top-paid federal employee, specifically because he was paid to prevent the next pandemic.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci has a call with his future biographer, Janet Tobias, who later produces the “FAUCI” documentary.

Dec. 3, 2019: Fauci has a call with Victor Dzau, who is the president of the National Academy of Medicine, a Duke University professor and a man whose Chinese family fled to Hong Kong to escape China’s civil war.

Dec. 19, 2019: Fauci attends an “NIH Gates Fdn dinner” at “The Cloisters,” likely the one in Lutherville, Maryland, an hour from NIH.

Earlier that morning, Bill Gates tweeted out what has become a much-discussed prediction, “What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Fauci and top officials, such as NIH director Francis Collins and Health and Human Services (HHS) assistant secretary for health Brett Giroir, joined Gates Foundation executives during the dinner and on panels the next day, according to a press report from the time.


Jan. 17, 2020: Fauci has a call to discuss “CDC Gao Writing Request.” This is presumably related to George Gao, Director-General of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jan. 23, 2020: Fauci had an 8 a.m., in-person meeting with Dr. James LeDuc. LeDuc ran one of the few BSL-4 (biosafety level-4) biocontainment labs in the country (think: moon-suit stuff), at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where he has long-trained Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab in BSL-4 biosafety procedures.

Emails acquired by FOIA from the U.S. Right To Know (USRTK) organization revealed that LeDuc was sending backchannel emails with his Wuhan colleagues to get information on the novel coronavirus outbreak, and even soliciting edits and corrections from Wuhan’s so-called “bat lady” Shi Zhengli for his April 2020 Congressional testimony.

LeDuc’s emails show he was communicating with his virologist colleague Yuan Zhiming, who was in charge of the WIV BSL-4 lab. LeDuc wrote an op-ed published on January 24 about his U.S.-China working relationship.

It’s possible this drop-by visit by LeDuc was to let Fauci know what he was hearing from Wuhan, and perhaps, not put that news in email.

By 4:30 that afternoon, LeDuc and former Ft. Detrick BSL-4 biolab director Dave Franz joined HHS Robert Kadlec for a conference call, a call revealed in USRTK’s document production from the University of Texas (page 3,409).

Franz emailed a brief note that same day “to facilitate [the] call.” The email described his and LeDuc’s work since 2007 as establishing a relationship with Chinese scientists (pg 115).

In other words, LeDuc was in town to talk about China and the Wuhan lab with top HHS and former military biolab officials.

Thus, while the public discussion was and would remain that the virus had a natural origin, behind the scenes, people were being briefed on the U.S.-Chinese scientists’ interactions and the Wuhan lab itself.

Top-secret meetings

Unreported until now, throughout late January and February 2020, Fauci was in meetings with the NSC and in top-secret settings — including in the White House Situation Room. Fauci was also in small, “restricted” meetings with the NSC.

Were all these top-secret meetings known to the president, and do they give the impression people-in-the-know thought the virus had a natural origin?

Jan. 14 and 16, 2020: Fauci has a 9 a.m. “Novel Corona Virus PCC/Synch Meeting” with Phil Ferro, NSC and Executive Office of the President, on the 14th and a “Novel Corona Virus Touch Base” with Ferro on the 16th.

Jan. 20: China announced to the world that the virus has human-to-human transmission, an admission that they had a possible pandemic virus on their hands.

Jan. 21: Fauci’s NSC meeting gets a new name (“nCoV-PCC”) and the meeting now includes secure video teleconference.

Jan. 21: Fauci is interviewed by The Wall Street Journal reporter Betsy McKay on the listed topic “Coronavirus & HIV Papers.”

Is she asking Fauci about an upcoming scientific paper (published Jan. 31 by Indian scientists, but quickly withdrawn by the authors, amid intense criticism) that noted an “uncanny similarity” between the HIV virus and the spike protein in the COVID-19 virus?

Because bats don’t contract HIV, such a similarity would point to a lab creation for the novel virus.

An hour earlier, Fauci had a call with Peter Hotez about an “Anti-SARS vaccine candidate.” Hotez is an NIH-funded, Texas-based scientist and vaccine researcher, who had a $6 million NIH grant since 2012 studying a “SARS vaccine for biodefense.”

Hotez developed a non-mRNA vaccine model, that won recent approval for distribution in some foreign countries, such as India.

Jan. 22: The COVID-19 meetings with Fauci rise to a new level as Fauci’s calendar shows him in the White House Situation Room (“WHSR”), from ~1:30-3 this day for “nCoV PCC.”

Jan. 24: From ~1:30-2:30 p.m. Fauci has a “nCoV Small Group Discussion” at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), next to the White House, in “Anthony’s Office” Room 381. (nCoV stands for novel coronavirus and was the reference given to COVID-19 before it was officially named SARS-CoV-2.)

This is one of the few times no last name is listed on Fauci’s calendar. The meeting entry in our FOIA production is cut off but includes “***Please”; the entry also includes an attachment, which NIH currently has not released to OpenTheBooks.com.

“Anthony’s Office” Clue from Feb. 5: From 2:30-3:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, Fauci’s calendar shows an EEOB “Restricted Small Group” meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, who is listed as with the Executive Office of the President/NSC.

Anthony Ruggiero, according to his public LinkedIn page, was NSC “Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Counterproliferation and Biodefense” at the time of the meeting. Thus, it’s likely the Jan. 24 EEOB meeting in “Anthony’s Office” was with the same man as the Feb. 5 meeting: Anthony Ruggiero.

Jan. 27: From 2:30-3:30 p.m., Fauci has an “NSC Deputy Call” in the NIH SCIF. (SCIF stands for “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility” and is usually a room reserved for sensitive or classified briefings.) Trump’s NSC deputy at the time was Matthew Pottinger. The subject of the call is not noted on the calendar.

(Also on Jan. 27, Fauci met with the CEO of Moderna, Stephane Bancel.)

Jan. 28: A Fauci/NSC COVID-19 meeting was previously disclosed Sharri Markson, who reported in her book “What Really Happened in Wuhan” that Pottinger called the Jan. 28 meeting with Fauci, HHS Secretary Azar and CDC Director Redfield just after Pottinger heard from Chinese dissident and human rights activist Wei Jingsheng about the virus breaking in China.

From Jan. 16 through Jan. 29, with few exceptions, Fauci’s weekday calendar shows a COVID-19 meeting, either in person or by phone via secure video teleconference with Phil Farro, who is with the Office of the President and the NSC.

Jan. 22: Fauci has an hour and a half blocked off for the COVID-19 meeting in the White House Situation Room.

Jan. 27: If he didn’t know before, emails released to the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee reveal that on this date, Fauci got definitive word from his staff that NIAID, his institute, funded a bat coronavirus grant to EcoHealth Alliance who collaborated with the WIV and Ralph Baric. If the virus was from the WIV, Fauci now knew he had funded the Chinese lab.

Jan. 31: Fauci is in the Oval Office, meeting, presumably, with the president.

Feb. 4: By this date, according to released emails, Fauci and the federally funded scientists he consults with, have decided that COVID-19 came from nature via a bat, through some intermediate species. Behind the scenes, they are drafting papers arguing that any position besides a natural origin is a conspiracy theory.

Yet, Fauci keeps meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, NSC’s biodefense and China expert (1/25 and 2/5). Are they thinking COVID-19 may have come from a lab leak?

Feb. 11: Fauci has a meeting with Ralph Baric, the University of North Carolina coronavirus scientist, arguably the nation’s foremost expert on bat coronaviruses. The meeting includes Emily Erbelding, the director of the NIAID Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Baric had a long working relationship with the Wuhan lab, and, it would later be revealed, applied (unsuccessfully) for a $14 million DARPA grant with the WIV and EcoHealth Alliance to insert a furin cleavage site into a chimeric bat virus and passage it through “humanized” mice to see if it had pandemic potential.

Some virologists have called that leaked document a recipe for the COVID-19 virus.

The Fauci/Baric meeting backs up against the NSC meeting with Phil Ferro. It’s not clear where Baric is during the meeting, if in-person or by phone. Was Baric on the NSC call or listening in?

(Previously at Forbes, I wrote about how Fauci continued to fund scientists like Baric and Fouchier by giving exemptions and narrowly defining scrutinized research — circumventing funding bans by Presidents Obama and Trump.)

Feb. 17: “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a paper that Fauci apparently helped edit and was organized by NIH-funded Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, stated that the COVID-19 virus was from nature and called any suggestion otherwise a conspiracy.

Largely based on this paper, scientific discussion and social media posts suggesting a lab leak were censored as misinformation.

Other items of interest

Between Nov. 25, 2019, and Feb. 26, 2020, Fauci does three events with the American Society of Microbiology (ASM): a “Biothreats” discussion (11/25/2019); the ASM biothreats conference (1/29/2020); and meets with the ASM board (2/26/2020).

Jan. 7 and 9, 2020: Fauci did his first interviews on corona: 1. With CTV (Canadian TV) on the “pneumonia outbreak in China”; and 2. With Voice of America (VOA) on the “Wuhan pneumonia.” We couldn’t find the interviews published anywhere on the internet.

While the NIH keeps a public record of interviews Fauci conducted since Jan. 27, 2020, we identified 34 other interviews with him discussing the coronavirus from Jan. 7 to Jan. 26.

Between Jan. 27 and Feb. 24, Fauci meets or has calls with Stephane Bancel, the CEO of Moderna (1/27); Jeremy Farrar of Wellcome Trust (British health non-profit focused on vaccines) (2/1); BioNTech executive and former NIH staffer Gary Nabel (2/6) and Johnson & Johnson chief scientist Paul Stoffels (2/24).

Feb. 7: Fauci receives training on personal protective equipment (PPE). Given his varying recommendations on PPE early in the pandemic, it would be interesting to know what training he received.

March 18: Fauci logged a meeting entitled “code red” with a follow-up meeting on March 20. No further details were listed.

March 26: Fauci did four YouTube hits of 15 minutes each. Fauci’s calendar titled these events: “FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] Califf Request” — likely referencing Robert Califf. At the time, Califf was leading healthcare strategy at Alphabet (Google and YouTube parent company).

Robert Califf is the current Commissioner of Food and Drugs of the FDA and the former commissioner under Obama.


The official work calendar is an historic hour-by-hour documentation of Fauci in the months leading up to and during the publicly announced COVID-19 pandemic.

Even with this topline calendar transparency, NIH admits to holding an additional 60,000 pages of backup documentation. The federal court is allowing us to ask for specific items.

Therefore, if there is a specific document of oversight interest, please send our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com a message via the “Contact Us” portion of our website.

The historic release of Fauci’s work calendar leaves all of us with more questions than answers.

It’s incumbent upon Congress to exert its right to oversight.

Note: We reached out for comment to Fauci, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other top scientists mentioned on Fauci’s calendar. None gave us comments by our deadline.

Originally published on Adam Andrzejewski’s OpenTheBooks Substack page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/anthony-fauci-calendar-before-pandemic/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=84cfc378-168f-4950-b1ba-671f4546a6b0