By Children’s Health Defense Team

Judging by recent news reports and government actions, public health officials are preparing us for a new epoch of polio alarmism, one that stands to serve the same purpose as the earlier waves of browbeating by media and officials — namely, to steer a frightened public toward further vaccination.

Before COVID-19, “polio” was perhaps the condition carrying the strongest cultural baggage as a trigger for parental and societal fears, thanks to years of branding that included images of children immured in cumbersome iron lungs.

For both polio and COVID-19, the public panic fomented by the media served the underlying medical-pharmaceutical agenda of promoting mass vaccination.

Even back in the pre-polio-vaccine days of 1937, an anonymous editorialist for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) sought to put cases of polio-attributed paralysis — relatively rare — in perspective, suggesting, “Without the overemphasis in the press the vast majority of people would not have been concerned by the few hundreds of cases among many millions of people.”

The JAMA editorialist also berated officials for stoking polio fears, arguing that “panic appears in the minds of the public” in part because poliomyelitis “is a visibly crippling disease,” but also because the panic “is frequently reflected in the statements and actions of public officials.”

[…]

Judging by recent news reports and government actions, however, the Scaremongering and Vacillation Committee is preparing us for a new epoch of polio alarmism, one that stands to serve the same purpose as the earlier waves of browbeating by media and officials — namely, to steer a frightened public toward further vaccination.

It’s all in the sewage

This past summer in New York, officials asserted a link between a single case of adult paralysis and genetic fragments in sewage samples purportedly matching oral polio vaccine components.

Although the U.S. does not administer oral polio vaccines, the conventional theory is that individuals who receive oral doses in other countries pose a “shedding” risk that can leave detectable vaccine-related genetic material in stool samples and sewage.

On this tenuous basis, New York’s governor on Sept. 9 declared a state disaster.

Disasters turn out to be a handy means of “opening up more vaccine resources,” including resources to go after New York counties where, from the state’s perspective, polio vaccination rates are too low.

Thus, the state is deputizing “midwives, pharmacists, emergency medical workers and other health care workers” to administer polio vaccines and boosters to virtually all and sundry, including children and babies who have not yet started the polio vaccination series; adults who are either unvaccinated, partially vaccinated or “unsure whether they received the vaccine”; and individuals (such as healthcare providers and wastewater treatment workers) deemed to be at “increased risk.”

In London, meanwhile, health authorities are aggressively pushing polio boosters citywide for 1- through 9-year-olds on the basis of suspect sewage samples alone — with no cases of the disease.

U.K. officials described the vaccination campaign as “a precautionary measure.”

And in Israel, where authorities pronounced polio the cause of a 3-year-old’s paralysis earlier this year, multiple cities suddenly reported “traces” of polio in sewage, prompting media hype about “spread” and exhortations for children and teens ages 7 through 17 years to get the oral polio vaccine.

Sewage shenanigans?

New York, London and Jerusalem were three of the jurisdictions that imposed the harshest COVID-19 restrictions and pushed the COVID-19 jabs the hardest — showing themselves to be willing agents for tyranny disguised as a health emergency.

At a time when large segments of the public have awakened to the dangers of the COVID-19 shots and more parents than ever are questioning childhood vaccines, is this influential triumvirate’s drum-beating about a possible polio resurgence — including calls for widespread polio vaccination — a mere coincidence?

At the very least, the provocative sewage claims by these powers-that-be should be scrutinized.

An explication of sewage surveillance gives credit to an early-2000s study in Helsinki as one of the first to effectively use sewage to snitch on putative polioviruses.

However, it was the oral polio vaccine that furnished the basis for the experiment:

“Scientists flushed a polio vaccine down a toilet 20 kilometres [about 12 miles] away from a wastewater treatment plant. The researchers then collected wastewater samples … over four days, and showed they could still detect the vaccine after 800 million litres of wastewater had passed through the system.”

What was it about the hardy vaccine that seemingly and scarily allowed it to resist millions of flushes?

The researchers didn’t ask, though a 2021 study showing bioaccumulation of “rotavirus vaccine strains” in oysters suggests the question remains pertinent.

Instead, public health authorities decided to add wastewater monitoring to their disease (not vaccine) surveillance toolkit.

The fallible PCR, again

Wastewater experts admit their surveillance techniques are fallible and far from reliable.

Earlier this year, Tufts University professor Amy Rosenberg cautioned that analysis of wastewater “is a chemically and biologically complex process” involving “multiple steps that are difficult to standardize and that require systematic controls,” with wastewater often containing “compounds that can interfere” with the principal method used to spot pathogens.

That “principal method,” since the 1990s, is the very same polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique abused to such an extent during COVID-19 as to now be roundly denounced as “useless.”

Rosenberg also noted “privacy and ethical concerns,” describing, then glossing over, the potential for misuse if wastewater data are linked with identifiable genetic or personal data — linkages that may be enabled by concurrent social media analysis or intelligence from geographic information systems.

In a paper published in August 2021, a group of 70 international experts also bemoaned the lack of “harmonized” quality assurance/quality control procedures, admitting that false or “inconclusive” results could conceivably cause “policymakers, public health officials, and the public to lose confidence” in the utility of wastewater monitoring.

However, there seems to be little risk of rejection by public health officials.

Au contraire, using the coronavirus as the excuse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) enthusiastically is positioning wastewater surveillance as a “new frontier for public health,” at the same time that leading schools of public health are declaring it the “next frontier” specifically in the fight against polio.

And water scientists who can see which way the funding winds are blowing are rushing to endorse sewage monitoring despite the pitfalls they readily acknowledge, with Rosenberg calling for its further development and expansion and supporting Harry-Potter-style “constant vigilance.”

Others even helpfully point out how officials could easily use wastewater analyses to justify “isolation practices” and implementation of stay-at-home directives, masking, social distancing or other “mitigation measures”  — never mind that COVID-19 conclusively demonstrated the arbitrariness and lack of science behind such measures.

Paralysis by any other name …

As Children’s Health Defense has pointed out in other articles, “There is, and always was, ample evidence to suggest that poisoning — whether by lead arsenate, DDT, or later, the toxic ingredients in polio vaccines themselves — is the most credible explanation for the paralytic symptoms and deaths that were labeled as ‘polio.’”

Ditto for the “polio-like illnesses” and deaths chalked up to “acute flaccid myelitis” and “acute flaccid paralysis,” which, like polio, authorities conveniently blame on lurking viruses rather than finger chemical — or vaccine — culprits.

For children presenting with severe respiratory illness, the CDC is even recommending healthcare providers make testing for these other viruses “a typical part of their diagnostic routine” using — what else? — PCR methods.

If public health officials were truly concerned about sewage and what it can tell us, why not focus on addressing “the health issues associated with long-term simultaneous exposure to a large number of pharmaceutical products” — including the active ingredients and metabolites of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiovascular drugs, antidepressants and antipsychotics — “known to partially survive the conventional process of wastewater treatment?”

In some settings, upgrading sewage systems — as part of classic water, sanitation and hygiene interventions — could also make a critical difference.

Instead, having rated polio a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” in 2014, the WHO chose to grant Emergency Use Listing status in late 2020 to an unlicensed oral polio vaccine funded by Bill Gates — and other experts are calling for “guarantee mechanisms” to incentivize the expansion of the polio vaccine supply chain.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-polio-vaccine-alarmism/

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D

The dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians” and its recommendations for disciplinary action have some critics questioning the organization’s motivation and the source of its authority and funding.

The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) has taken a stand against what it refers to as “the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other healthcare professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media,” going so far as to recommend disciplinary action.

In a July 2021 press release, the FSMB warned physicians they could risk “disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.”

And in a lengthier statement issued in April 2022, the nonprofit — which says it “serves as the voice for state medical boards” — appeared to advocate for laws like the one sitting on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk that would punish doctors who share COVID-19 “misinformation” with their patients.

[…]

In its July 2021 press release, the FSMB did not define what it meant by “misinformation or disinformation,” yet the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine subsequently issued a joint statement supporting the FSMB’s position.

[…]

But some critics of the FSMB’s aggressive “misinformation” policy questioned where the organization derives its authority and who’s really behind it.

What is the FSMB — and who funds it?

Created in 1912 at a “small annual gathering of state board executive officers with no permanent staff or headquarters,” the FSMB today has almost 200 employees and two national headquarters — one in Texas and another in Washington, D.C.

The private tax-exempt 501(c)(6) trade association says it supports “America’s state medical boards in licensing, disciplining and regulating physicians and other healthcare professionals” and works to “keep patients safe.”

Since its inception, the FSMB has been staffed with members who presently or previously held positions with other medical governing bodies.

In fact, FSMB’s leadership — in conjunction with the U.S. government — in May 1994 spawned another medical authority agency — the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA).

According to IAMRA’s website, the IAMRA was formed when “FSMB, under contract with the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), planned and hosted the 1st International Conference on Medical Regulation in Washington, D.C.”

FSMB and IAMRA share an office address in Texas. Their official phone numbers are nearly identical. And when a person calls the phone number listed on IAMRA’s website, the prerecorded welcome message tells the caller they’ve reached FSMB and IAMRA, in that order.

FSMB’s president and CEO, Chaudry, is also the secretary of the IAMRA. This overlapping of leadership positions extends beyond FSMB and IAMRA into medical councils in other countries.

For example, Dr. Emanuel Garcia, a psychiatrist living in New Zealand who publicly voiced concern about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, noted in an Aug. 22 article for Global Research that the chair-elect of the IAMRA, Joan Simeon, “just happens” to be the CEO of the Medical Council of New Zealand.

Garcia, who questioned whether the FSMB and IAMRA’s true motivations were ensuring safe medical practices, said:

“In casting an eye over the years since the dramatic introduction of the COVID pandemic, the near total shutdown of the world, the immense transfer of wealth from the middle and poorer classes upwards, the universal imposition of an inadequately tested so-called vaccine, and the vehement suppression of critical early treatment, one cannot but conclude that there is indeed an agenda beyond health and welfare.

“The FSMB and the IAMRA have shown by their actions that they are tools whose task is to further this agenda, and that this agenda is both anti-medical and inhumane.”

In addition to contracting with the U.S. government and IAMRA, the FSMB runs its own foundation that functions as a separate 501(c)(3) organization but is supported by a “generous seed endowment” from the FSMB.

Last April, the FSMB foundation celebrated its 10-year anniversary by hosting its annual fundraising luncheon. Its annual highbrow luncheons have raised thousands of dollars to support the organization’s activities, including “the study of state responses to the COVID-10 pandemic.”

The FSMB foundation’s website does not disclose its donors.

Commenting on the FSMB’s July 2021 statement, “Spreading COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation May Put Medical License at Risk,” Garcia said, “The outstanding question remains: Where does the FSMB derive its authority to regulate United States medical boards and, through its apparent international partner, the IAMRA, direct medical councils around the world to discipline doctors?”

So many questions …

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist who had her medical license suspended in January for “spreading misinformation,” told The Defender the FSMB’s authoritative actions raise many questions.

Nass, a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, outlined the questions in an email:

• Why would a nonprofit with no regulatory authority suddenly decide it was important to trash the First Amendment, the Nuremberg Code and other legal doctrines to push for punishing doctors who fail to tell the government’s story and use COVID-19 treatments the government doesn’t want used?
• Why is the FSMB monitoring the states and collecting information on their attempts to investigate and/or punish doctors for doing their duty to act as  learned intermediaries to their patients?
• Why did the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics push identical policies in lockstep in mid-2021 that would destroy physician autonomy, when physicians are, one would think, their clients?
• Why did the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists push for experimental vaccinations during all trimesters of pregnancy?

Nass suggested all of these questions should be investigated.

A history of ties to Big Pharma

Historically, there is evidence of Big Pharma funneling money to the FSMB.

For example, a decade ago, MedPage Today broke the story on how the FSMB turned to a pharmaceutical company with a $3.1 million request to underwrite the cost of producing and distributing a book about its opioid prescribing policy.

After the FSMB’s guidelines for the use of opioids to treat chronic pain patients were adopted as a model policy, the organization asked Purdue Pharmaceuticals for $100,000 to help pay for printing and distributing the policy to 700,000 practicing doctors.

The initial $100,000 was just a small downpayment on the $3.1 million the FSMB’s foundation estimated it would cost for its campaign to get out the word about the “safe” use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain, according to MedPage.

The FSMB also has a history of challenging and attacking non-pharmaceutical medical approaches used by integrative doctors as falling outside the “standard of care” as they define it.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/federation-of-state-medical-boards-covid-misinformation/



NWO Report

Posted BY: Chris Menahan | Information Liberation

A new YouGov/Economist poll asking Americans about the likelihood of various “dire political scenarios” found that half the country think that within ten years the US will no longer be a global superpower and there will be a “total economic collapse.” 

From YouGov:

Among 15 potential future scenarios involving instability or political violence, the one that most Americans consider likely in the next decade is that the U.S. ceases to be a global superpower (50% say this), followed by a total collapse of the U.S. economy (47%). Each of the 15 dire scenarios is considered somewhat or very likely in the next decade by at least 20% of Americans.

[…] 37% of Americans say [a civil war] is at least somewhat likely to occur.

[…]

After an end to the U.S.’s global-superpower status and economic collapse, the next most likely scenario is that the U.S. will cease to be a democracy (39% say this is likely within the next decade). Slightly more say it’s likely the U.S. will become a fascist dictatorship (31%) than say it will become a communist dictatorship (21%). (The poll didn’t ask whether people believe a given scenario has already occurred, so some people who believe this probably are included among those who said each scenario is likely.)

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe nearly all of the scenarios asked about are likely within the next 10 years. Two-thirds of Republicans (65%) believe that total economic collapse is at least somewhat likely, compared to only 38% of Democrats. Around half of Republicans (48%) say it’s likely that the government will confiscate citizens’ firearms; only 17% of Democrats say this. Republicans are also more likely than Democrats to believe there will be a total breakdown of law and order (49% vs. 31%) and that the U.S. will be invaded by a foreign country (41% vs. 24%).

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/2022/09/14/poll-half-of-americans-think-u-s-will-no-longer-be-a-global-superpower-within-ten-years/



By Dr. Joseph Mercola

A data leak suggests the real reason health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists is that the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots is not intact.

Story at a glance:

• The reason health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists is that the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots is not intact.
• For an effective mRNA product, the mRNA integrity needs to be 100%, meaning all the RNA must be intact. Considering how ineffective the jabs are, it seems fair to question whether lack of mRNA integrity might be to blame.
• Fragmented RNA could potentially also be hazardous to health by generating incomplete spike proteins. While we do not know if incomplete spike proteins are dangerous, it’s possible they might contribute to cellular stress.
• The “bad batch” phenomenon may also be indicative of quality problems. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have very few or no adverse events associated with their use.
• However, the fact that “hot” lots are being released in a coordinated fashion suggests vaccine makers may in fact be doing intentional lethal-dose testing on the public, and that these “bad batches” are not merely the result of intermittently poor manufacturing.

A 14-minute video (below) that has been overlooked for nearly two years has now resurfaced, exposing stunning information about the COVID-19 jabs and why health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists.

The reason, it turns out, is because the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots “is not intact.” Both of these pose potentially serious problems.

In an Aug. 31 Substack article, Steve Kirsch explains:

“Even if you are getting 100% intact mRNA which would be really rare, you’re still not getting anything that resembles the virus. So the efficacy as far as PROTECTING you will be next to nothing.

“However, what it will do very effectively, if you got reasonably intact mRNA, is to cause you significant harm. You are playing a game of chance with your immune system and what is in the bottle.”

The video notes that members of the European Parliament were only allowed to read the contracts with the drug makers after they’d been heavily redacted. Why the heavy-handed secrecy, even toward legislators?

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/f038068d-862b-41ae-81fe-96bcd52c4cb7

Leaked documents reveal serious quality issues

The finding that the mRNA in the shots was of questionable quality was revealed in a British Medical Journal feature investigation article published in March 2021.

As explained by the author, journalist Serena Tinari, cyber attackers retrieved more than 40 megabytes of Pfizer COVID-19 jab data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020.

The hacked data was subsequently sent to journalists and academics worldwide. It was also published on the dark web. Some of the documents show European regulators had significant concerns over the lack of intact mRNA in the commercial batches sampled.

Compared to the clinical batches, i.e., the shots used in the clinical trial, 55% to 78% of the commercial shots had “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species.”

In one email, dated Nov. 23, 2020, a high-ranking EMA official noted that the commercial batches failed to meet expected specifications, and that the implications of this RNA integrity loss were unclear. In response to the findings, the EMA sent a list of questions and concerns to Pfizer.

While we do not know if and how the EMA’s concerns were actually addressed and corrected, the EMA authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 jab Dec. 21, 2020.

According to its public assessment report, “the quality of this medicinal product, submitted in the emergency context of the current (COVID-19) pandemic, is considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable.”

Similarly, Health Canada told the Britsh Medical Journal that “changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches.” The EMA further tried to deflect concern by claiming some of the leaked documents had been doctored.

As reported by the British Medical Journal:

“EMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that ‘whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created, and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.’”

[…]

Intact mRNA is essential to its effectiveness

Curiously, when the Britsh Medical Journal asked Pfizer, Moderna, CureVac and several regulators to specify the percentage of mRNA integrity considered acceptable, none replied with specifics.

According to the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the FDA and Health Canada, the specification limit on RNA integrity is “commercially confidential.” What we do know — and the EMA has acknowledged — is that intact mRNA is essential for efficacy.

As noted by the Britsh Medical Journal:

“The documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines, which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency.

“Of particular concern is RNA instability, one of the most important variables relevant to all mRNA vaccines that has thus far received scant attention in the clinical community.

[…]

“RNA instability is one of the biggest hurdles for researchers developing nucleic acid based vaccines. It is the primary reason for the technology’s stringent cold chain requirements and has been addressed by encapsulating the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles.

“‘The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,’ professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year.

“‘Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.’”

For an effective product, mRNA integrity needs to be 100%. Considering how ineffective the jabs are, it seems fair to question whether lack of mRNA integrity might be to blame. We also do not know whether nonintact mRNA might be harmful.

As noted by Kirsch, “Unstable mRNA means the spike protein … could collapse, making the whole process useless to support immunity, but still dangerous in terms of damage to cells. So, you get all the risk and no benefit.”

While our public health agencies claim fragmented RNA poses no health risk, just how do they know that? The leaked documents revealed they specifically did not have an answer to that question, and no research into the matter has been published, that I’m aware of.

Fragmented RNA may produce incomplete spike proteins

In May 2021, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, published an excellent paper in which she highlighted several potential dangers of the COVID-19 jabs, including the unknown hazard of injecting fragmented RNA.

[…]

Kirsch points out that the EMA also expressed concern over visible particles in the vials, which the Britsh Medical Journal did not follow up on. “Is it still a problem?” Kirsch asks. That’s a good question, and the answer is probably yes.

But even worse is that we have absolutely no idea what these incomplete spike proteins are doing, none, zero, nada. It has never been directly examined. For that matter efforts to evaluate, and complications of the jab, have been consciously suppressed as have following simple metrics such as increases in all-cause mortality.

[…]

What’s the cause behind the ‘bad batch’ phenomenon?

The “bad batch” phenomenon may also be indicative of quality problems. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have very few or no adverse events associated with their use.

According to howbadismybatch.com, a site that matches up vaccine lot codes with reports in the VAERS system, approximately 5% of the lots are responsible for 90% of all adverse reactions. Some of these batches have 50 times the number of deaths and disabilities associated with them, compared to other lots.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mrna-covid-vaccine-vials-data-leak-cola/

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D

The Rockefeller Foundation, the National Science Foundation (an “independent” agency of the U.S. government) and other nonprofits are pouring millions of dollars into a research initiative “to increase uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and other recommended public health measures by countering mis- and disinformation.”

In conjunction with the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), the Rockefeller Foundation last month announced $7.2 million in funding for the Mercury Project,  initially launched in November 2021, under the slogan, “Together, we can build a healthier information environment.”

The funds will the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Science Foundation (an “independent” agency of the U.S. government) and other nonprofits are pouring millions of dollars into a research initiative “to increase uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and other recommended public health measures by countering mis- and disinformation.”upport 12 teams of researchers in 17 countries who will conduct studies on “ambitious, applied social and behavioral science to combat the growing global threat posed by low COVID-19 vaccination rates and public health mis- and disinformation,” the Rockefeller Foundation said.

The Rockefeller Foundation and the SSRC claim the aim of the Mercury Project, whose name is derived from the ancient Roman god of messages and communication, is to bolster public health and safety.

However, some critics described the project as one based on “propaganda” aimed at “nudging” the unvaccinated to get vaccinated.

Creating ‘behavioral change’ by targeting schoolchildren and specific socio-economic groups

Behavioral change lies at the heart of the Mercury Project, which will issue three-year research grants to estimate “the causal impacts of mis- and disinformation on online and offline outcomes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,” including “differential impacts across socio-demographic groups.”

The research will include “interventions that target the producers or the consumers of mis- and disinformation, or that increase confidence in reliable information.”

Some of the “interventions” proffered by the Rockefeller Foundation include “literacy training for secondary school students” to “help students identify COVID-19 vaccine misinformation,” “equipping trusted messengers with communication strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccination demand” and “using social networks to share tailored, community-developed messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccination demand.”

This information will, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, “provide evidence about what works — and doesn’t — in specific places and for specific groups to increase COVID-19 vaccination take-up.”

But according to ZeroHedge, the research groups funded by the Mercury Project “are operating with the intent to tailor vaccination narratives to fit different ethnic and political backgrounds, looking for the key to the gates of each cultural kingdom and convincing them to take the jab.”

The project uses “ambiguous language and mission statements” to at least partially conceal the project’s main purpose of “using behavioral psychology and mass psychology elements to understand the global resistance to the recent COVID compliance efforts,” ZeroHedge reported.

‘Fabricating effective COVID propaganda’ a ‘money train’ for behavioral researchers and psychologists

In November 2021, the Mercury Project received an initial $7.5 million in seed funding from entities including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to apply “the principles of large-scale, team-based science to the problem of vaccination demand” over a three-year period.

As of August 2022, these entities have funded the Mercury Project to the tune of $10.25 million.

In June, the project received $20 million from the National Science Foundation to study “interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination demand and other positive health behaviors.”

The SSRC’s latest call for proposals, under the aegis of the Mercury Project, received nearly 200 submissions.

The accepted proposals come from researchers in countries including the U.S., Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, England, France, Ghana, Haiti, Kenya, India, Malawi, Mexico, Sierra Leone, Spain, Rwanda and Tanzania.

U.S.-based researchers represent institutions including Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Duke, Harvard, MIT, New York University, Rutgers, St. Augustine University, Stanford, UC Berkeley, University of Southern California, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan, Vanderbilt and Yale.

The titles of some of the projects most recently funded by the Mercury Project include:

• “A tough call: Impacts of mobile technology on Covid-19 (mis)information and protective behavior decision-making.”
• “Boosting boosters at scale: A megastudy to increase vaccination at scale.”
• “Building a better toolkit (for fighting misinformation): Large collaborative project to compare misinformation interventions.”
• “Harnessing influencers to counter misinformation: Scalable solutions in the Global South.”
• “Targeting health misinformation networks: Network-transforming interventions for reducing the spread of health misinformation online.”

Arguing in favor of the importance of the project’s research, Anna Harvey, president of the SSRC, stated:

“With COVID-19 prevalent and rapidly evolving everywhere, there is a pressing need to identify interventions with the potential to increase vaccination take-up.

“Vaccines are only effective if they become vaccinations; vaccines are a scientific marvel but their potential is unfulfilled if they are left on the shelf.”

Describing the Mercury Project’s grantees, Dr. Bruce Gellin, the Rockefeller Foundation’s chief of global public health strategy, said:

“This initial cohort’s ideas exemplify the creativity and vision behind the Mercury Project. They go far beyond quick fixes, with the goal of identifying robust, cost-effective, and meaningful solutions that can be widely adopted and scaled.

“We hope that more, better, and science-based knowledge about what we need to do will lead to increased uptake of reliable information — and serve as a powerful counter to the effects of misinformation and disinformation on vaccine demand.”

Heather Lanthorn, the Mercury Project’s program director, highlighted the importance of leveraging communication toward achieving public health objectives:

“The viral, vaccine, and information environments are all rapidly evolving–but that doesn’t mean it is impossible to make progress towards more effective and equitable responses.

“By funding projects on the ground around the world, this work will help us understand what works where, and why, and identify new ways to harness the power of connection and communication to advance public health goals.”

ZeroHedge, however, countered that behind all the rhetoric, the focus of the Mercury Project, is “propaganda, propaganda and propaganda,” and “the very basis of the existence of the Mercury Project presupposes that individuals cannot be trusted to make up their own minds about the information they are exposed to.”

The expectation is that individuals “must be molded to accept the mainstream narrative,” ZeroHedge said, while presupposing that “mainstream or establishment information is always trustworthy and unbiased.”

“Fabricating effective COVID propaganda is becoming a money train for the small groups of behavioral researchers and psychologists that jump onboard,” ZeroHedge added.

GAVI: 200 global ‘nudge units’ specialize in applying behavioral science to everyday life

The field of behavioral science — and a concept known as “nudging” — figured prominently during the years of the COVID-19 pandemic and were heavily utilized by governments and public health officials throughout the world to justify often stringent restrictions and countermeasures.

Nudging was defined in a bestselling 2008 book by economist Richard H. Thaler and legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein — “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” — as something that “alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.”

Thaler and Sunstein presented nudging as a technocratic solution for tricky policy issues involving a perceived need to encourage, in a “voluntary manner,” policies or measures that would otherwise be unpopular.

Their work drew from a 1974 paper by two Israeli psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, which, as explained by an article published by GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance, “pioneered the study of mental shortcuts that humans rely on to make decisions, known as heuristics.”

As previously reported by The Defender, the Rockefeller Foundation is also a partner and board member and donor to GAVI, alongside the WEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which hosted Event 201, which simulated the spread of a coronavirus just prior to the actual COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2010, the U.K. government established the Behavioural Insights Team, initially within the government’s Cabinet Office, before it was spun off as a private company in 2014. A year later, U.S. President Barack Obama issued an executive order to promote the utilization of behavioral science in federal policymaking.

According to GAVI, “globally, there are now more than 200 teams, or nudge units, that specialize in applying behavioral science to everyday life.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rockefeller-foundation-nonprofits-behavioral-psychology-covid-vaccines/

by Will Jones

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) shows not only that the effectiveness of the Pfizer Covid vaccine becomes negative (meaning the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated) within five months but that the vaccine destroys any protection a person has from natural immunity.

The study is a large observational study that looks at 887,193 children aged 5 to 11 years in North Carolina, of whom 273,157 (30.8%) received at least one dose of Pfizer vaccine between November 1st 2021 and June 3rd 2022. The study includes 193,346 SARS-CoV-2 infections reported between March 11th 2020 and June 3rd 2022.

The researchers used a form of statistical modelling with adjustments for confounding factors (such as underlying conditions) to calculate estimates of vaccine effectiveness over time and against the different Covid variants.

The findings are depicted in the charts below. In chart A, notice that the green and blue lines, representing children vaccinated in November and December respectively, go through zero into negative territory at a sharp gradient within five months of the first injection. It’s unclear why the green line is not continued past April, as the researchers presumably had the data, but from what is shown it looks very much like the vaccine effectiveness will continue declining deep into negative territory.

In chart B, we see both the red and blue lines – which represent children who are vaccinated and have been previously infected and not previously infected respectively – again going through zero at a steep gradient within five months of vaccination. The fact that the vaccinated who have natural immunity from previous infection also see negative effectiveness is a surprise as one would not expect those with natural immunity to be more susceptible to infection than those without it.

Charts C and D suggest that it is the vaccine that is causing this worrying erasure of natural immunity. Chart D shows the effectiveness of natural immunity from previous infection among the vaccinated. Notice that the blue line, which is protection against the Delta variant among the vaccinated-and-previously-infected, hits zero at a steep gradient within seven months. Now look at the blue line in chart C, which is protection against Delta in the previously infected and unvaccinated. It, too, is waning, but much more slowly, and after eight months it is still very much in positive territory at over 50%. The same can be said for natural immunity against earlier variants (green line), which wanes slowly and remains positive after 16 months. Why is natural immunity remaining protective for the unvaccinated, whereas in the vaccinated their ‘protection’ goes negative even if they have natural immunity?

This is very disturbing because it suggests not only that the vaccines give negative ‘protection’ after a few months but also that they destroy the protection that should have been provided by natural immunity. The unvaccinated keep their protection from previous infection but the vaccinated end up with negative efficacy even if they’ve been previously infected. This means the vaccines appear to demolish a person’s natural immunity and leave him or her more vulnerable to infection than he or she was before.

The new findings add to growing concerns among scientists about the effect of the Covid vaccines on the immune system. A recent study in mice found that mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s inhibit the immune system response to other pathogens. In that study (which is not yet peer-reviewed), the culprit appeared to be the lipid nano-particles (LNPs) which carry the mRNA in the vaccine: “We found that pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs or LNP alone led to long-term inhibition of the adaptive immune responses.”

[…]

Via https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/12/covid-vaccine-destroys-natural-immunity-nejm-study-shows/

By Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang

Epoch Times

A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.

This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.

The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Dr. Martin Adel Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care;” and Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the University of California, San Francisco Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.

But among this team of high-profile international experts who authored this paper, perhaps the most notable is Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Keshavjee has also worked extensively with Partners In Health, a Boston-based non-profit co-founded by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis, according to his online biography.

Risking disenrollment

As the study pointed out, students at universities in America, Canada and Mexico are being told they must have a third dose of the vaccines against COVID-19 or be disenrolled.

Unvaccinated high school students who are just starting college are also being told the COVID-19 vaccines are “mandatory” for attendance.

These mandates are widespread. There are currently 15 states which continue to honor philosophical (personal belief) exemptions, and 44 states and Washington, D.C. allow religious exemptions to vaccines.

But even in these states, private universities are telling parents they will not accept state-recognized vaccine exemptions.

Based on personal interviews with some half a dozen families, The Epoch Times has learned that administrators at some colleges and universities are informing students that they have their own university-employed medical teams to scrutinize the medical exemptions submitted by students and signed by private doctors.

These doctors, families are being told, will decide whether the health reasons given are medically valid.

5 ethical arguments against mandated boosters

Though rarely reported on in the mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy.

While some countries are quietly compensating people for devastating vaccine injuries, and other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the United States is now recommending children 12 and older get Pfizer-BioNTech’s Omicron-specific booster, and young adults over the age of 18 get Moderna’s updated shot.

At the same time, public health authorities in Canada are suggesting Canadians will need COVID-19 vaccines every 90 days.

Against a backdrop of confusing and often changing public health recommendations and booster fatigue, the authors of this new paper argue that university booster mandates are unethical.

They give five specific reasons for this bold claim:

1. Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.
2. Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.
3. Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented the transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work — the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness” — the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.
4. No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.
5. Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”

The consequences of non-compliance include being unenrolled, losing internet privileges, losing access to the gym and other athletic facilities and being kicked out of campus housing, among other things.

These punitive approaches, according to the authors, have resulted in unnecessary psychosocial stress, reputation damage, loss of income and fear of being deported, to name just a few.

Download for Free: Robert F. Kennedy’s New Book — ‘A Letter to Liberals’

22,000 to 30,000 previously unaffected young adults must be vaccinated to prevent just 1 hospitalization

The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.

However, this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection. So, the authors insisted, “this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.”

In other words, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are essentially useless.

Mandated booster shots cause more harm than good

But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.

These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.

At a regional hospital in South Carolina, the desk clerk sported a button that read: “I’m Vaccinated Against COVID-19” with a big black check mark on it.

“What about the boosters?” a hospital visitor asked. “It’s starting to seem like we need too many shots.”

“It does seem like a lot,” the clerk agreed. “It’s hard to know what to do.” But she did have some advice for the visitor: “Just keep reading and educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision.”

This new paper is essential reading for anyone trying to decide if they need more vaccines. The authors concluded their study with a call to action. Policymakers must stop mandates for young adults immediately, be sure that those who have already been injured by these vaccines are compensated for the suffering caused by mandates, and openly conduct and share the results of risk-benefit analyses of the vaccines for various age groups.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-mandate-college-students-unethical-et/

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

An Indian court ordered Bill Gates, the Indian government and the Serum Institute of India — the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer — to provide formal responses relating to a case filed by the father of a 33-year-old doctor who died after receiving AstraZeneca’s Covishield COVID-19 vaccine.

An Indian court ordered Bill Gates, the Indian government and the Serum Institute of India — the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer — to provide formal responses relating to a case filed by the father of a woman who died after receiving AstraZeneca’s Covishield COVID-19 vaccine.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay set a Nov. 17 deadline for the responses and scheduled a hearing for the same day.

In a lawsuit filed in February, Dilip Lunawat alleged his daughter, Snehal Lunawat, died March 1, 2021, of complications arising from the Covishield vaccine. He is seeking compensation of ₹1000 crores (approximately $126 million).

According to the lawsuit, Lunawat “lost his elder daughter. His loss can neither be explained in words nor can be compensated in terms of money. Only some sort of succour can be done by awarding compensation.”

Defendants in the case include Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute; Bill Gates, in his role as partner in the development of the Covishield vaccine; the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; the Indian State of Maharashtra; India’s drug controller general; the former director of the All India Institute of Medical Science and others.

A lawyer representing Gates reportedly appeared before the High Court to accept the notice.

33-year-old doctor died due to ‘rare blood-clotting event’ following vaccination

Snehal Lunawat was a 33-year-old doctor and senior lecturer at the SMBT Dental College & Hospital in Maharashtra State. According to her father, she was compelled, as a health worker, to get the Covishield vaccine.

On Jan. 28, 2021, Snehal received the Covishield vaccine, which is produced by the Serum Institute. Her father claims his daughter had received assurances the vaccines were entirely safe and posed no risk to her health.

However, her father stated, Snehal developed severe headaches and vomiting while attending a workshop just days after receiving the vaccine, resulting in her hospitalization. There, doctors said that she was suffering from bleeding in the brain, low platelet count and blood clot formation.

After 14 days elapsed without her condition improving, Snehal’s family transferred her to another hospital, where she died eight days later.

Snehal experienced a “rare blood-clotting event,” a complication that resulted in her blood platelet count decreasing due to increased bleeding in her brain.

According to the lawsuit, these adverse reactions have been found to be related to the AstraZeneca and Covishield COVID-19 vaccines in some countries.

Download for Free: Robert F. Kennedy’s New Book — ‘A Letter to Liberals’

Lawsuit claims vaccination occurred based on ‘false narrative’

The lawsuit names the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) for its role in helping to speed up the process of manufacturing and delivering up to 100 million doses of Covishield for distribution in India and various developing countries.

In the lawsuit, Lunawat “blamed the Government and others for misrepresenting the facts about the COVID-19 vaccine by making false claims about its safety and ‘forcing’ medical practitioners to take the vaccine.”

Lunawat said his daughter was convinced to receive the vaccine as a result of an “alleged false narrative.”

The lawsuit characterized interviews given by Indian public health officials in the nation’s media as contributing to this “false narrative,” naming several of these interviews, including one by Dr. VG Somani, drug controller general of India, that was broadcast on Jan. 4, 2021, and during which Somani claimed, “the vaccines are 110 percent safe.”

It was “on the basis of such false narratives and misrepresentation by the senior authorities … and its implementation by the state authorities without any proper verification, [that] health workers like the lawsuiter’s daughter was compelled to get the vaccine,” the lawsuit states.

Aside from the named defendants, the lawsuit also calls for action to be taken against social media platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube, and mainstream media for their role in disseminating the “false narratives” and for allegedly suppressing information about the adverse effects, inefficacy or failure of the vaccines.

The lawsuit requests a declaration that Indian state authorities are responsible for Snehal’s death, calls on authorities to publish the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines and to take steps to stop further deaths of citizens as a result of their adverse effects, and urges the authorities to demand compensation from the Serum Institute.

Lunawat said he is seeking justice for his deceased daughter and for “many more people who are likely to be murdered” due to vaccine injuries.

Doctor’s death was subject of a WHO investigation

This was not the first time that Snehal’s family succeeded in getting the media to tell her story — the incident first became known in India due to her family’s efforts to have an investigation launched regarding her death.

As previously reported by The Defender, Snehal’s family initially reached out to the Indian government and the Serum Institute requesting her death be investigated, as it was registered as an adverse event in India’s “Adverse Event Following Immunisation” (AEFI) database.

However, a satisfactory response was not provided, prompting the family to reach out to the World Health Organization (WHO), which then investigated the incident.

Due to pressure from the family and the intervention of the WHO and the All India Drugs Network, the AEFI committee on Sept. 25, 2021 —  following nearly seven months of delay — accepted the claim that Snehal’s death was vaccine-related. The committee issued a report on Oct. 2, 2021.

This was only the third vaccine-induced death recognized by AEFI. The process of reporting vaccine-related deaths to the AEFI database is reportedly “not easy.”

Other Indian court cases are investigating vaccine injury claims, role of Bill Gates

Snehal’s death is not the only high-profile Indian legal case concerning vaccine injuries or seeking damages against Gates and others.

As reported by The Defender, another case, Yadav v. Maharashtra, also before the Bombay High Court, was filed in late 2021, by the mother of the deceased, Shri Hitesh Kadve, who was “unwillingly” vaccinated on Sept. 29, 2021, and died that same day due to an adverse reaction from the Covishield vaccine.

The family of the deceased is also seeking damages against Indian public health bodies and officials, Poonawalla and Bill Gates, referred to in the complaint as a “mastermind” and as a “habitual offender of mass murder by vaccination in conspiracy with Government officials.”

The Indian Bar Association — an informal group of Indian lawyers (the Bar Council of India is India’s official bar association) — lists several other recent legal developments requiring Indian government and public health officials to respond to claims regarding deaths allegedly resulting from COVID-19 vaccines.

For instance, India’s Supreme Court on Aug. 29 issued notice to the country’s central government, requesting a response in the case of two children said to have died as a result of vaccine adverse effects.

On Aug. 10, the high court of the Indian state of Kerala ordered the Indian government to immediately develop guidelines for the issuance of compensation to the victims of vaccine injuries and side effects, with the government telling the court that such policies are currently in the process of being formulated.

And earlier this year, the Kerala High Court requested a response from the Indian government in the case of a 19-year-old woman who died allegedly as a result of the vaccine.

Indian doctors lead initiative declaring ‘international medical crisis’ due to vaccine injuries, deaths

As lawsuits make their way through India’s courts, a group of Indian doctors are leading an initiative to draw attention to COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries and deaths.

More than 400 doctors and medical professionals from 34 countries on Sept. 10 held a press conference during which they declared an international medical crisis arising from “diseases and death associated with the ‘COVID-19 vaccines.’”

The declaration, which emerged from concerned doctors and medical professionals in India, makes eight “urgent” demands, including calling for an immediate stop to the administration of COVID-19 vaccinations and the investigation of all deaths involving previously healthy individuals.

The Serum Institute of India is not only the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold, but it also produces more than half of the world’s vaccines that are administered to babies.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-indian-government-lawsuit-snehal-lunawat-death-astrazeneca-vaccine/