Reprinted from THE EXPOSE - Exclusive Investigation of Confidential Pfizer Documents finds COVID Vaccination is going to cause Mass Depopulation

Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to mass depopulation.

This is a pretty bold claim to make. ‘Your Government is trying to kill you’ is even bolder.

But unfortunately, these bold claims are now backed up with a mountain of evidence, and most of that evidence can be found in the confidential Pfizer documents that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has been forced to publish by court order.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

So let’s start with the evidence contained in the confidential Pfizer documents.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1st June 2022.

One of the documents contained in the data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 12 of the confidential document contains data on the use of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection in pregnancy and lactation.

Confidential Pfizer Documents reveal 90% of Covid Vaccinated Pregnant Women lost their Baby

Pfizer state in the document that by 28th February 2021 there were 270 known cases of exposure to the mRNA injection during pregnancy.

Forty-six-percent of the mothers (124) exposed to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection suffered an adverse reaction.

Of those 124 mothers suffering an adverse reaction, 49 were considered non-serious adverse reactions, whereas 75 were considered serious. This means 58% of the mothers who reported suffering adverse reactions suffered a serious adverse event ranging from uterine contraction to foetal death.

Source – Page 12

A total of 4 serious foetus/baby cases were reported due to exposure to the Pfizer injection.

But here’s where things get rather concerning. Pfizer state that of the 270 pregnancies they have absolutely no idea what happened in 238 of them.

But here are the known outcomes of the remaining pregnancies –

There were 34 outcomes altogether at the time of the report, but 5 of them were still pending. Pfizer note that only 1 of the 29 known outcomes were normal, whilst 28 of the 29 outcomes resulted in the loss/death of the baby. This equates to 97% of all known outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child.

When we include the 5 cases where the outcome was still pending it equates to 82% of all outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child. This equates to an average of around 90% between the 82% and 97% figure.

So here we have our first piece of evidence that something is amiss when it comes to administering the Pfizer Covid-19 injection during pregnancy.

Here’s the guidance taken from the UK Government’s ‘REG 174 INFORMATION FOR UK HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS’ document –

That’s how the guidance read in December 2020 anyway. Unfortunately, just a month or so later, the UK Government and other Governments around the world revised that guidance to read as follows –

Source – Page 7

This is still the official guidance as of June 2022, and leads to several questions requiring urgent answers when we consider since early 2021 pregnant women have been told Covid-19 vaccination is perfectly safe.

You only have to look at the things women were told to avoid during pregnancy prior to being told it’s perfectly safe to take an experimental injection to realise something just isn’t right here –

  • Smoked fish,

  • Soft cheese,

  • Wet paint,

  • Coffee,

  • Herbal tea,

  • Vitamin supplements,

  • Processed Junk foods.

These are just to name a few, and the list is endless.

So let’s start with the ‘Pregnancy’ section of the official guidance. In December 2020 the guidance stated ‘Covid-19 vaccination is not recommended during pregnancy‘. Just a month or so later this guidance stated ‘Animal studies do not indicate harmful effects with respect to pregnancy etc.’

So let’s take a look at the animal studies in question.

But before we do it’s worth pointing out that the official guidance states, as of June 2022, that ‘administration of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus’. So why on earth has every single pregnant woman up and down the land been actively coerced into getting this injection?

Pfizer and Medicine Regulators hid dangers of Covid-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy due to Animal Study finding an increased risk of Birth Defects & Infertility

The limited animal study talked about in the official guidance actually uncovered the risk of significant harm to the developing foetus, but medicine regulators in the USA, UK and Australia actively chose to remove this information from public documents.

The actual study can be viewed in full here and is titled Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine.

The study was performed on 42 female Wistar Han rats. Twenty-one were given the Pfizer Covid-19 injection, and 21 were not.

Here are the results of the study –

Source

The results of the number of foetuses observed to have supernumerary lumbar ribs in the control group were 3/3 (2.1). But the results of the number of foetuses to have supernumerary lumbar ribs in the vaccinated group were 6/12 (8.3). Therefore on average, the rate of occurrence was 295% higher in the vaccinated group.

Supernumerary ribs also called accessory ribs are an uncommon variant of extra ribs arising most commonly from the cervical or lumbar vertebrae.

So what this study found is evidence of abnormal foetal formation and birth defects caused by the Pfizer Covid-19 injection.

But the abnormal findings of the study don’t end there. The ‘pre-implantation loss’ rate in the vaccinated group of rats was double that of the control group.

Source

Pre-implantation loss refers to fertilised ova that fail to implant. Therefore, this study suggests that the Pfizer Covid-19 injection reduces the chances of a woman being able to get pregnant. So, therefore, increases the risk of infertility.

So with this being the case, how on earth have medicine regulators around the world managed to state in their official guidance that “Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy”? And how have they managed to state “It is unknown whether the Pfizer vaccine has an impact on fertility“?

The truth of the matter is that they actively chose to cover it up.

We know this thanks to a ‘Freedom of Information (FOI) request made to the Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

A document titled ‘Delegate’s Overview and Request for ACV’s Advice‘ that was created on 11th January 2021 was published under the FOI request. Page 30 onwards of the document shows a ‘review of the product information’, and highlights changes that should be made to the ‘Non-clinical evaluation report’ prior to official publication.

The changes were requested to be made by Pfizer prior to the next product information update.

Some of those requested changes were as follows –

The Module 4 evaluator requested Pfizer remove their claim that “Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to reproductive toxicity”.

Why?

The Module 4 evaluator told Pfizer that ‘Pregnancy Category B2’ was considered appropriate and requested that they added the following line –

“A combined fertility and developmental toxicity study in rats showed increased occurrence of supernumerary lumbar ribs in fetuses from COMIRNATY- treated female rats”.

But here’s a reminder of how the official document issued to the general public reads –

Source – Page 7

The pregnancy category was changed to ‘B1’, no line was included on the increased occurrence of supernumerary lumbar ribs in fetuses, and they instead included the line that was requested to be removed claiming “Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy…”.

Here’s the official description of the pregnancy categories –

Source

That’s quite a big difference between the two categories. But the fact that the Module 4 evaluator even thought Pregnancy Category B2 was appropriate is highly questionable when you consider the results, as we revealed above, of the “inadequate” and extremely small animal study that was performed to evaluate the safety of administering the Pfizer Covid-19 injection during pregnancy.

So not only do we have evidence that the Pfizer vaccine may cause between 82% and 97% of recipients to lose their babies, we also now have evidence that the Pfizer vaccine leads to an increased risk of suffering infertility or birth defects.

Both of these examples alone support the suggestion that Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to depopulation. But unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t end there.

Confidential Pfizer Documents reveal the Covid-19 Vaccine accumulates in the Ovaries

Another study, which can be found in the long list of confidential Pfizer documents that the FDA have been forced to publish via a court order here, was carried out on Wistar Han rats, 21 of which were female and 21 of which were male.

Each rat received a single intramuscular dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection and then the content and concentration of total radioactivity in blood, plasma and tissues were determined at pre-defined points following administration.

In other words, the scientists conducting the study measured how much of the Covid-19 injection has spread to other parts of the body such as the skin, liver, spleen, heart etc.

But one of the most concerning findings from the study is the fact that the Pfizer injection accumulates in the ovaries over time.

An ‘ovary’ is one of a pair of female glands in which the eggs form and the female hormones oestrogen and progesterone are made.

In the first 15 minutes following injection of the Pfizer jab, researchers found that the total lipid concentration in the ovaries measured 0.104ml. This then increased to 1.34ml after 1 hour, 2.34ml after 4 hours, and then 12.3ml after 48 hours.

The scientists, however, did not conduct any further research on the accumulation after a period of 48 hours, so we simply don’t know whether that concerning accumulation continued.

But official UK data published by Public Health Scotland, which can be found here, offers some concerning clues as to the consequences of that accumulation on the ovaries.

Figures for the number of individuals suffering from ovarian cancer show that the known trend in 2021 was significantly higher than 2020 and the 2017-2019 average.

Ovarian Cancer – Source

The above chart shows up to June 2021, but the charts found on Public Health Scotland’s dashboard now show figures all the way up to December 2021 and unfortunately reveal that the gap has widened even further with the number of women suffering Ovarian cancer increasing significantly.

Click to enlarge

That concludes our third piece of evidence. So now we know –

  • Confidential Pfizer documents show a miscarriage rate between 82 and 97%,

  • The only animal study performed to prove the safety of administering the Pfizer vaccine during pregnancy indicated an increased risk of infertility and birth defects,

  • and further confidential Pfizer documents reveal the vaccine accumulates in the ovaries.

Unfortunately, we also have evidence that Covid-19 vaccination increases the risk of newborn babies sadly losing their lives, and it also comes from the Public Health Scotland ‘Covid-19 Wider Impacts’ dashboard.

Newborn Baby Deaths hit critical levels for 2nd time in 7 Months in March 2022

Official figures reveal that the rate of neonatal deaths increased to 4.6 per 1000 live births in March 2022, a 119% increase on the expected rate of deaths. This means the neonatal mortality rate breached an upper warning threshold known as the ‘control limit’ for the second time in at least four years.

The last time it breached was in September 2021, when neonatal deaths per 1000 live births climbed to 5.1. Although the rate fluctuates month to month, the figure for both September 2021 and March 2022 is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.

Click to enlarge
Source

Public Health Scotland (PHS) did not formally announce they had launched an investigation, but this is what they are supposed to do when the upper warning threshold is reached, and they did so back in 2021.

At the time, PHS said the fact that the upper control limit has been exceeded “indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred”.

Our final piece of evidence to support the claim that Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to depopulation comes in the form of more real-world data, but this time from the USA.

Covid-19 Vaccination increases risk of suffering Miscarriage by at least 1,517%

According to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC)) Vaccine Adverse Event Database (VAERS), as of April 2022, a total of 4,113 foetal deaths had been reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections, 3,209 of which were reported against the Pfizer injection.

Credit: Health Impact News

The CDC has admitted that just 1 to 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS therefore the true figure could be many times worse. But to put these numbers into perspective, there were only 2,239 reported foetal deaths to VAERS in the 30 years prior to the emergency use authorisation of the Covid-19 injections in December of 2020. (Source)

And a further study which can be viewed here, found that the risk of suffering a miscarriage following Covid-19 vaccination is 1,517% higher than the risk of suffering a miscarriage following flu vaccination.

The true risk could however actually be much higher because pregnant women are a target group for Flu vaccination, whereas they are only a small demographic in terms of Covid-19 vaccination so far.

With the risk of this turning into an essay that concludes our evidence for today, but there is plenty more of it out there and we will make sure to report on it.

But with –

  • Confidential Pfizer documents showing a miscarriage rate between 82% and 97%,

  • The only animal study performed to prove the safety of administering the Pfizer vaccine during pregnancy indicating an increased risk of infertility and birth defects,

  • Further confidential Pfizer documents revealing the vaccine accumulates in the ovaries, data from Scotland revealing cases of Ovarian cancer are at an all time high,

  • Further data from Scotland revealing deaths of new born babies have hit critical levels for the second time in seven months,

  • and CDC VAERS data showing Covid-19 vaccination increases the risk of suffering a miscarriage by at least 1,517%,

It looks like we already have more than enough evidence to make the claim that Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to depopulation.

Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

https://expose-news.com/2022/07/10/exclusive-pfizer-docs-covid-vacccination-depopulation/

Reprinted from: Who is Robert Malone - IppocrateOrg: People helping each other An Italian response to the COVID crisis Robert W Malone MD

Before getting into the deep structure, organization, analysis and conclusions which are the objectives of IppocrateOrg, it is important to understand the reasons why this group started such a complex project.

Based in Italy, forged in response to the COVIDcrisis, the IppocrateOrg Movement has assembled a volunteer international network of physicians, researchers, health and social workers to help patients who had nowhere else to turn.  The State-endorsed medical establishment offered patients nothing other than nihilist inpatient hospital treatment protocols with unacceptably high mortality rates.  As the epidemic surge kicked in (particularly in Northern Italy), the founding organizers of IppocrateOrg recognized that all of the international political, financial, and corporate media structures were becoming remarkably aligned in messaging about both the risks of the virus and the treatment options. The initially chaotic and conflicting landscape of local, national, and international responses often resulted in governments dissembling and failing to provide clear, sensible answers and public health response guidance. Journalists, philosophers, political commentators, party members and representatives of international organizations began stressing out that after this pandemic “nothing will ever be like before”.  Although a true and indisputable statement, it is vague, naïve and provides no answer to the question “what will the change look like?”.  In response to this barrage of dysfunctional confusion and lack of leadership, IppocrateOrg physicians and scientists developed and publicized new treatment protocols for treating patients at different stages of disease, and affiliated physicians and other medical providers began deploying early treatment, saving lives, and keeping patients from ever needing to go to the hospitals.

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

The IppocrateOrg team witnessed what the official scientific world came up with in various different geographic locations: from every branch of  virology, immunology and epidemiology research, illustrious representatives would often contradict each other.  However, despite the confusion, all of the sanctioned “official” voices agreed that they opposed those who were trying to find concrete solutions and therapies to save lives using existing medications.  The physicians of IppocrateOrg would not accept a treatment strategy that involved only providing Oxygen to intubated patients while waiting for instructions from the top levels. Those physicians took decisions according to their clinical knowledge of the disease which no one in the top spheres of medical influence would consider.  Where these banned alternative treatment strategies were implemented since the surge of the epidemic, mortality has been very low.

In the face of the undeniable fact that early interventions save lives and almost completely eliminate mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is not surprising that questions would arise, particularly when we see useful drugs been left aside in favor of other patented medications which have not been demonstrated to be effective. These questions lead IppocrateOrg leaders to think hard about what is really going on, and to seek a path to change what the government is doing within medicine; to change the relationship between clinical and research medicine, and to gain autonomy from international, national and regional Departments of Health which act as if captured by the medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex.

Our efforts to envision an alternative medical community started from these insights prompted by observing the dysfunctional response of corporate and state-sanctioned medicine. We are commited to the belief that it is the right of the person to assume personal responsibility for maintaining his or her own health, and that all have the right to access medical care according to their best interest (not someone elses interest). It is not in our mind a society where human being is at the center point of the project but we know that something has to change in our world because the current social, economic and corporatist model is putting the right for health across the entire world in danger.

And we just can’t let that happen.

IppocrateOrg believes that the people of Italy and Switzerland cannot continue thinking about solutions to all these problems while remaining silent and alone, with everyone following government guidance to remain stuck in their own isolation.  This is not what the people around us are asking for, in term of freedom, wellbeing, health, prosperity and maintenance of an active and diversified economy.

We simply cannot forget our oath. Yes, our oath is the Hippocratic Oath been medical practitioners and their patients. Moving forward, we are committed to making IppocrateOrg a laboratory or ideas, to scientifically oppose any project to manipulate or alter the neutrality of medicine and  scientific research, to fight any current or future conflicts of interest, and to promote the active citizenship and participation of every human being in their own medical care.

Going forward from this point, our goal is to care for the health of each other, our community and our land. The quality of our lives is deeply connected to the amount of care we take of every place where we live. This is the reason why IppocrateOrg is reaching out to the whole world . Every place in the world deserves the opportunity to give and receive help.  A necessary collaboration to take personal responsibility for building a better future.

The strength and determination of those participating in this project is based on a deep connection to the strong belief that COVID-19 has revealed and is still illuminating many structural and political contradictions of the modern world, not only within medical and scientific fields, but also in economics, social and political science, and in the financial sector.

Italy and COVID-19

IppocrateOrg is based in Italy, a homeland of family, love for grandparents, and respect for elders.

A family culture that stems from a long history of care and traditions. A family culture which now, as a consequence of globalized neo-liberalism, has allowed itself to be replaced by a distorted vision, a glossy image, a commodified representation of a "happy Italian family" that is mainly useful for exploitation by commercial advertisements to generate economic returns.

A ‘culture of artifice and deceit’ has gradually supplanted the ‘culture of feeling’ which once prevailed.  A historic culture which was anchored in reality and in one's own emotions and sensations. The process has been so slow, pervasive and insidious that it has prevented people from even being aware of it. It all began in the 1980s with the advent of Berlusconi's television stations and his desire to imitate the American TV channels: his programming has trivialized human values, integrity and feelings on behalf of substitute values such as success, wealth, competition at any cost, and physical beauty.  Berlusconi and his television stations have created a shadow reality that only counts if it can be translated into entertainment shows, crime news and journalistic scoops while totally displacing coverage of information about any solidarity or experiences aimed at repairing human suffering caused by administrative mismanagement of the COVIDcrisis and so many other things.

No one was even noticing all of this. Italians' lives went on quietly until Pandora's box was opened by COVID.  As of early 2020, Italian radios, TVs and newspapers all seemed to agree that an extremely dangerous global pandemic was underway, caused by a virus that most likely originated from bats of Wuhan seafood and wet meat market in China: the Sars-Cov-2. It sounded like just the beginning of a classic American splatter movie, but instead it was everyday reality: while newspapers and news programs talked all day about bats and "patients zero," evening broadcasts were suddenly stuffed with movies like Wolfgang Petersen's “Lethal Virus”.

Distressing, hammering words began to invade the lives of all Italians on a daily basis, and there seemed to be no room for more news. Terrifying images, statistics, numbers, government restrictions, dictates and sudden ordinances flowed continuously, one after another, in a violent and destabilizing crescendo. All Italians found themselves confined to their homes, almost as if they were under house arrest, accepting anything to protect themselves and their loved ones. However, in spite of the "lock-downs" (a foreign word that suddenly become part of the Italian vocabulary), the virus continued to inexorably spread: in warlike tones, the government and its parade of virologists constantly communicated to citizens how they were going to confront the enemy.

Inexplicably, "paracetamol and watchful waiting" become the mantra of all primary care physicians. This became the only medical treatment protocol provided to infected patients: indeed, no treatment seemed to be possible. The only solution envisioned lay in the development and production of magical new vaccines that would finally be able to stop the infection. In this situation of utter crisis and chronic fear, vaccines become the Italians' dream, the only way out of the nightmare. During the long wait, hospitals become transmission centers for the infection, and people received no actual treatment, dying without the comfort of their families from whom they were so carefully separated.  More devastating than the virus itself, depression and hopelessness infected the homes of Italians, and the few tricolors waving shyly from balconies alternated with a few rainbow flags saying "Everything will be all right", as if to cling to an idea of nationhood and typically Italian tradition of solidarity which in reality had already been destroyed as a trait of Italian culture.

The majority of the Italians had their minds clouded by an overwhelming sense of fear, to the point that, by ostensibly acting for noble ends - "to protect the most fragile people", they began fueling their own self-destruction. The ever present fear of death, triggered by journalists and "talk show scientists", prevented non-experts from being able to reason about such elementary issues as:

1. Why does my family doctor no longer give me any assistance?

2. Why are we only told to wait for the evolution of the disease, without even attempting to use available medications or treatments?

3. Why are numerous associations of physicians arising and disobeying government mandates. Why are these physicians treating unknown patients free of charge, devoting their attention to them, and providing prescriptions for drugs and treatments which the government denies and the corporate media derides?

4. Why are family members not being allowed to say a final goodbye to a dying relative at a public facility, albeit with proper precautions? Why are their families not even being permitted to talk to them on the phone?

In this storm of events, emotions, information and above all fear, a small minority managed to remain sufficiently grounded in reality and common sense, began separating the distressing messages from a more rational and balanced interpretation of the true reality of the situation. Some of them, while blocked by corporate media power from communicating their alternative perspective, began to express their reasoning through alternative information channels. Others, like the movement of people who now constitute IppocrateOrg, took direct action in the field, providing health care, listening and understanding to many others.

The Birth of IppocrateOrg

From these roots, IppocrateOrg emerged as an organic movement composed of physicians and ordinary people.  Citizens who at that time did not let themselves become overwhelmed by the constant pressure of corporate media and state-promoted fear.  They began to see through the narrative put forth by journalists and talk show virologists, and remained true to themselves, while seeking to act in solidarity with those who were in need.

As if by a miracle, people who did not know each other and had no profit motive met through long-distance calls every day to work together in developing relief strategies. It was in this way that 70,000 people in Italy were treated by these physicians and medical care providers - with only 14 deaths – even including those people who contacted the IppocrateOrg Help Center when experiencing advanced stages of COVID disease.

By means of its physicians' work and the publication of a special handbook, IppocrateOrg has provided the guidance needed to treat the disease in its onset phase - with the use of anti-inflammatory drugs - as well as in its intermediate cytochemical storm phase - using cortisone, antibiotics and heparin - and in its final phase - providing assistance, through its legal team, to hospitalized patients who needed hyperimmune plasma. This set of treatment strategies, although not covered in official protocols, led to the recovery of 90% of hospitalized cases treated in this manner.

The published IppocrateOrg handbook ("Healing at Home from Covid 19: Manual for Early Tailored Therapy", available on Amazon) lists therapeutic treatment plans designed for each stage of the disease, as well as examples of therapeutic tailoring (particularly in cases of prior disorders). It is still consulted by many Italian families, and many of these have provocatively gifted it to their family doctors. After treatment protocol development and publication, a training exercise was set up for the 300 physicians cooperating with IppocrateOrg, followed by weekly teleconferences or other meetings to address the most pressing issues: a mutation of the virus; the need for adjustment of therapies; the impact of pre-existing conditions on the course of the disease; a new drug "discovered" by international partners with whom IppocrateOrg's Medical Scientific Committee was in regular contact; and any other issues that could allow the cases to be best dealt with. In addition to all this, special Whatsapp chats were been set up, within which newly entered physicians were able to obtain help and support from those who were already experienced with the treatment protocols.  This constant information sharing, the training courses, and the shared philosophy of respect for life have helped to create a new class of medical doctors.  Physicians whose human qualities make them particularly sought after and in demand today, especially by like-minded people.

IppocrateOrg's efforts during the COVIDcrisis are now being examined through retrospective studies by University Institutes, which in their initial results have already confirmed what IppocrateOrg's 300 Italian physicians measured in the field: namely, that when COVID treatments are administered within the third day of symptoms onset, lethality is reduced to very close to zero.

A significant example is the retrospective observational study conducted by the Center for Research in Medical Pharmacology at the University of Insubria, coordinated by the Professor of Pharmacology Dr. Marco Cosentino and published in MedRxiv as a pre-print on April 5, 2021. This study confirmed what we had observed in the field.  Near-zero lethality if people are treated right away.  In turn, this opens a big question about the 160,000 Italian deaths: most of these deaths were essentially due to the denial of treatment by government and health agencies, backed by some scientific “researchers” whose objectivity was typically compromised by a conflict of interest stemming from the source of their research funding.

The entire story of IppocrateOrg, and the road it took to become a true intentional community, has been marked by its responses to the many challenges and attacks it suffered, especially in the initial phase.  In retrospect, what the IppocrateOrg community has experienced represents moments when History was testing how strong and real the intent to create a new community was. How was IppocrateOrg able to weather the storm of corporate media and governmental attacks as it developed both effective COVID treatments as well as a new intentional community? In the next paragraphs, we will try to summarize and simplify some crucial steps, offered in the hope that readers may learn from both our success as well as our setbacks.

IppocrateOrg's highlights and difficulties

In 2021, in the midst of the Italian vaccination campaign and the related pressures exerted in various forms and ways on the population, a number of events directly involved IppocrateOrg, and these events acted like selective pressures causing it to evolve. Let us consider the three most significant episodes:

1. The active participation in organizing the International Covid Summit in Rome, a three-day event (one of which was held in the halls of the Senate of the Italian Republic), which brought together physicians and associations from around the world who had successfully treated their patients with COVID 19.

As was to be expected, given the high and sudden visibility to the work, people arrived from all over the world to disprove the effectiveness of the ‘emergency’ health care directives adopted by governments.  From that moment on, Italian national press and TV stations began implementing an intense denigrating media campaign, depicting internationally renowned medical doctors and scientists as impostors and frauds, and openly attacking IppocrateOrg’s physicians by calling them "sellers of ginger, licorice and ineffective cures".

2. The creation and success of a video produced by IppocrateOrg, reaching 2 Million views in Italy. The Title: "Let's protect children".

The video highlighted the need to carefully weigh risks and benefits of an experimental vaccine on children. The physicians who took part in it are still undergoing disciplinary proceedings by their professional bodies, and are still awaiting a final ruling about whether they will be allowed to continue treating patients.

3. The temporary closure of IppocrateOrg’s Help Center, mainly caused by the lack of vaccinated doctors allowed by the Italian government to be able to treat patients.

In Italy, physicians, nurses, and teachers who decided not to get vaccinated have been hit with politically motivated disciplinary measures, including being suspended from their jobs even when their work is (or could be) conducted online. Such measures are not justified by the stated objective of avoiding patient infections, but have been implemented to punish those who do not comply with the diktats of the system. It has become clear that the government and allied medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex seeks to eliminate such principles as therapeutic freedom of choice, the risk/benefit assessment and the possibility of objections to an individual physician by infected caregivers self-suspending from work. The government rule actually aims to target with disciplinary measures those doctors, including retired ones, who have not complied with the vaccination directive. Although the data have demonstrated that vaccinated persons continue to become infected, replicate and transmit the virus, there have been no modifications to the intentions of the authorities. At the time of writing, suspension of unvaccinated physicians from the Italian medical register is scheduled until 12/31/2022.

IppocrateOrg's responses and achieved results

Again, keeping to a similar order of triggering events, we will shed light on the key words which represent IppocrateOrg’s modus operandi and the results we achieved.

1. Visibility and balance

The smear campaign unleashed after the International COVID Summit also involved some local TV channels: by featuring the President and other members of the IppocrateOrg association in live programs aimed to humiliate them, official corporate media instead increased their visibility. The presence, dignity, preparation, and balance maintained by the President and other members during the broadcasts gradually broadened the general consensus of listeners who were previously unfamiliar with the movement.  Moreover, upon seeing the blatant injustices and undue attacks on people who kept themselves calm and balanced, a great many decided to actively support the Association. “In cammino con IppocrateOrg” ("On the Path with IppocrateOrg"), for example, is a Facebook group of supporters who reacted to the media attack by establishing themselves as one of many communities in its defense.

2. Trust and communication

For the physicians in the "Let's Protect the Children" video who have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings by their professional orders, IppocrateOrg has made available free legal defense; it will also continue to carry out initiatives to support them, especially from a communication point of view, through the alternative information channels that are gaining more and more listeners in Italy. The open and transparent stance taken by IppocrateOrg physicians against vaccinating children helped create a greater climate of trust among those fighting with us.  Beyond a few sporadic statements by individual physicians, in order to protect medical caregivers, it was decided by the IppocrateOrg community to make no reference to the medical doctors openly siding with and defending children. That choice also helped to strengthen the original core of the “purpose community” that IppocrateOrg embodies.

There were also a number of political figures, both parliamentarians and members of the government, who quoted IppocrateOrg’s video on television.  These politicians cited the video to support their misgivings about implementing a vaccination campaign on minors, particularly in those situations where children were not getting serious forms of COVID.  The video provided them cover to note that, except in a few very rare cases, the risk-benefit ratio of such childhood vaccination was heavily leaning in favor of the risk due to vaccine-associated side effects.

3. Destructuring old and implementing new models

The news about the temporary suspension of the COVID Help Center (from early December 2021 until December 23, 2021) was widely reported in national newspapers and on TV. Of course, the mainstream media manipulated the news of the suspension of one of IppocrateOrg's services by passing it off as the closure of the Association itself.

But this episode also elicited widespread reactions from Italian society.  IppocrateOrg began to be contacted by physicians, vaccinated and therefore able to work, who wanted to volunteer to reopen the COVID Help Center.  Other communities of people, including many patients treated by IppocrateOrg, then sprung up to protest against the Italian authorities and to show the results achieved with the treatments given by IppocrateOrg physicians to COVID patients.

“Noi con IppocrateOrg” ("We with IppocrateOrg") is another community, with a Facebook page, which arose at the cry of its founder: "IppocrateOrg has done so much for us, now it is time for us to do something for IppocrateOrg". This Facebook group has been joined by tens of thousands of people who have testified about their experience as patients assisted by IppocrateOrg, and today it carries out initiatives supporting distribution of health information, education and news sharing in close contact with IppocrateOrg.  Moreover, the Italian authorities' suspension and persecution of medical doctors for refusing to get vaccinated or simply warning parents against vaccinating their children has caused an even deeper reaction.

Now that the COVID emergency is over, IppocrateOrg's initial response has turned into a real challenge, summed up in the organization of a health care system alternative to the national one.  This has resulted in the opening of outpatient clinics which are distributed all over the country (Purpose Medicine Centers), which will deal with all kind of diseases (not only COVID).  With its "Purpose Medicine Centers”, IppocrateOrg aims to remain a point of reference for citizens who have become disoriented and worried by our health care system's bad conditions (as clearly highlighted by the pandemic emergency) and to promote the return to a healthcare model that puts the person's true well-being at the center of its actions.

To set “Well-Being” as a medical objective (rather than disease treatment) means adopting a comprehensive view of the whole person, taking into consideration all aspects and areas in which life takes place and expresses itself. It means creating relationships based on listening, trust and respect, each of which are also fundamental on the path towards healing.  From this perspective, it becomes essential to promote and spread a culture of prevention and healthy lifestyles, as well as to pursue the moral imperative of making access to integrated and personalized care available to all.

The physicians of IppocrateOrg, as they have done over the past two years of COVID caring, will also deal with all other illnesses, continuing to rely on the constant training provided (which will be further intensified) and on the already well-tested relationship of mutual comparison and collaboration among colleagues.

That's not all: Purpose Medicine Centers distributed throughout the country will offer diagnostic services to allow faster timing of tests - a service that will also be home-based for those unable to move - and will provide for the presence and support of psychologists and specialized health lawyers, as well as facilitations for people in financial difficulty.

The system has been organized as follows:

1. The “front liners”, in contact with patients, will be the doctors not hit by government directives;

2. A nationwide “Medical Community” will support the work of the "front liners" by providing consultations with physicians of different specialties, going so far as to suggest diagnostic tests to be performed and therapies to be administered. The entire collective of physicians, in short, reconstitutes the practice of integrated and personalized Medicine which a single hyper-specialty-trained physician can hardly master alone;

3. At the same time, the IppocrateOrg Medical Community is opening a dialogue with all the so-called "alternative" Medicine systems and their practitioners, to evaluate whether as yet unexplored avenues for the treatment of certain diseases can be together pursued.

The IppocrateOrg Association, which sponsors these outpatient clinics, requires their physicians in charge to adhere to a code of ethics. This stipulates, among other points, that medical practitioners commit to:

- operating in science and conscience for the sole interest of the person requesting a medical examination;

- participatation in weekly training courses taught by the Physicians of IppocrateOrg;

- enrolling in the two-year "Master of De-Specialization" program, for graduates in the healing professions (physicians, psychologists, nurses, pharmacists);

- abiding by the maximum benefit rates specified by IppocrateOrg, and to provide free of charge visits for people suspended from work because they and their families are not vaccinated;

- participation in the association, currently being formed, which will raise funds for underprivileged people wanting to get treatment from IppocrateOrg doctors;

- participatation in the Medical Community to provide, in turn, advice to the “front line” doctors.

To support the development and application of new ethical and organizational models, aligned with our vision to place human beings instead profit at the center of everything, IppocrateOrg also focused on the creation of a real School, which has been developed with 3 levels of instruction:

1. The "De-Specialization" school, aimed at graduates in the healing professions. By the term "de-specialization" we want to summarize the idea of the return from a specialized vision of the Medicine, to the special vision of the person. A Medicine which brings the physician back to assessing the patient's situation by always considering the big picture first, and then applying a personalized therapeutic approach.

2. The Naturopathy school, accessible to those with a high school diploma, which follows the same principles as to point 1.

3. The school to become "Territorial Representatives for Well-being", aimed at everyone (no need to hold particular educational qualifications). The Territorial Representatives are local liaison figures for communities, family groups, self-run schools, associations and businesses, on subjects concerning individual and collective health and well-being. The training includes topics not only closely related to health care, but also to environmental, economic, organizational and social subjects. The Representatives, in addition to variously promoting their own local initiatives for the personal and community welfare, also work as constant liaisons with IppocrateOrg physicians on strictly medical issues for the benefit of the groups they represent.

The context in which IppocrateOrg is operating

Thinking big is what is enabling us to overcome the little challenges of today and the future challenges of tomorrow. On the other hand, analyzing the situation in which we find ourselves from a larger historical, social, economic and political perspective allows us to review and reevaluate our actions along the way. This is helping IppocrateOrg to distinguish between those issues caused by our own socio-cultural conditioning and those belonging to our deeper intentions: commonality with our neighbors and compassion for those in pain.  Reflecting on our civilization means reflecting on ourselves, on the direction of our actions, and the need to make individual changes.

Our Western Civilization has been shaped and steered, on the one hand, by an unbridled industrial capitalism which has used every means at its disposal to condition people's minds, in order to homogenize them as much as possible, and to be able to exert an ever more refined control over them.  On the other hand, the modern world is being shaped by a speculative finance system which promotes an unsustainable exploitation of the resources and the real economy itself (heedless of the crises that increasingly affect hundreds of millions of already deprived people) and which exploits the human beings as objects, a mere component of an industrial machine in the service of "progress."

How to get out of this situation? Certainly not simply with slogans or protests.  Escaping this system will require complex innovative thinking to meet the complexity of the challenge. We must reunite that which today is separate.  Not only the separation between people but also separation caused by the splitting and fragmentation which has occurred within the person himself. Social and individual fragmentation has been the main weapon of those who have carried out predatory actions for the sole purpose of profit, and who have disregarded all ethical perspectives as well as any opportunity for harmonious human development.

Under the globalized industrial systems of today, national governments no longer have any say or sovereignty, and are unable to make decisions opposing those with financial power. They have been forced to only obey a single summit: a narrow élite of people who make decisions on a global level scale, affect the masses through control of the media, and dictate to governments their agenda on issues whose strategic importance is only for their own personal gain; expansion of their wealth and power.

Only the world's most powerful country, the United States of America, still seems to retain a negotiating edge, but this is gradually thinning. Once fickle financial power has completed its metamorphosis, transforming at the end into a vertically structured and globally organized power, it will be able to act and make decisions without even the support of “the world's most powerful state” (including its currency).

In its final stage of metamorphosis into a global power system, manipulation of the masses absolutely remains the central issue. Indeed, in the predatory finance logic of today there is no room for the "recovery and restoration" of the antecedent reality. The current fiction is to introduce into the mass consciences the feeling that we are heading towards a saving and appeasing direction- “The Great Reset”.

As proof, it is enough to linger on a trivial reflection: those finding space in the mass media and ostensibly fighting in defense of the planet and its habitat could not have access to those same media if they actually, practically, came into conflict with or harmed that elite which governs global finance.

But the real confirmation to what we claim, comes from the fact that those who are publicized in every mass media and made out to be "fighters for a better world", never question the paradigm that has led us to this most critical point. Why never questioning that paradigm and the power governing it, and instead only fighting its repercussions? Is it possible to not be aware that the same paradigm and power system will only repeat what they have previously produced? Is it possible not understanding that the ongoing support the same system of development and the same power aggregate, both leading to catastrophe, will never change the future?

Many volunteers from many nonprofit organizations, committed to fighting pollution, social inequality, poverty and all the ills afflicting humanity, disagree with our analysis. Maybe, because many of the activists engaged in those actions do not want to give up their social positions, their way of life - consciously or unconsciously. Or maybe, because if they would go out of their way to look at things from a more sweeping perspective, they would discover the profound inconsistencies existing not only in the society they live in and the way it is run, but even in their personal lives, finding themselves forced to revise and, perhaps, turn their point of view upside down.

Truly sweeping thinking, unfortunately or fortunately, does not work by compartments.

Human nature and personal destructuring: steps to a better future

With the above considerations in mind, and since the whole process of change must start from ourselves, from each of us, a personal destructuring seems to be the first step that must be taken. True change necessarily begins with an individual journey: the mental structure patiently forged by the Western Civilization in recent decades first needs to be deconstructed, in order to re-construct the individual. To succeed in this, we need to go back a thousand steps and first understand what is - for ourselves - the true nature of the human being. The only definition, we personally think fully describes it is to be conditioned.  It is also true, however, that a person's best qualities can successfully be preserved over time, even in crises and emergencies, if only the ideal soil is created and then kept fertile for this to happen.

How to create the ideal humus for planting the seed of a new civilization?

As demonstrated by the phenomenon of Entanglement and the most recent researches in Quantum Physics, it is now a well-established fact that everything in the universe is closely interconnected. Therefore, the first necessary step is to move from the ‘Ego’-system in which we grew up, sustained by dynamics of domination and control, to an ‘Eco’-system. Within an Eco-system, the disconnection and individualism typically found in the former, do not exist: here, plants, animals and humans each perform their functions naturally, are connected as parts of the same organism, and all deserve the same respect. In an Eco-system, therefore, social and business models are primarily based on the principle of cooperation, ethics, mutual exchange, product quality, care and connection (not that of smartphones, by the way).

For this reason, within the IppocrateOrg Association, the "Origini Project" (www.origini.life) was born: starting from a reassessment of current social and cultural models, its aims are to explore an ideal habitat in which a human being has a chance to evolve, in total harmony with everything around him. The Origini Project aims to promote and become a "certifier" of an out-and-out lifestyle that would permeate every aspect of life, helping to create an ecosystem made up of associations, communities and businesses whose ultimate goal are health, well-being and the evolution of Man in all his potential, in harmonious relationship with the environment: the greatest challenge of our century.  We believe that creativity, ethical exchanges and the development of a people culture, capable of passing on an Eco-systemic range of values, can form the foundation for the birth of a new Western Civilization.

Mauro Rango                President of IppocrateOrg

Irina Boutourline          Vice-President of IppocrateOrg

(Translated by Daniela Brassi)

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/ippocrateorg-people-helping-each

Reprinted from Clandestine's Newsletter - New Russian MIL Report on US Biolabs in Ukraine 07/07/2022 Clandestine

New report on new documentation recovered from Russian Military on the US Biological network in Ukraine! And this one is LOADED with new information. I highly suggest you read the entire report, then come back and read my analysis on the parts that stuck out to me most.

Clandestine’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Russia’s Special Military Operation has found documentation pertaining to a third party evaluation of the US biological network, specifically the Defensive Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in Ukraine, pertaining to the facilities from 2005-2016 (Remember these dates). The document contains the data on evaluation of healthcare, veterinary and biosecurity system efficiency prepared by a group of U.S. experts in 2016.

The experts confirm that despite 10 years of activity in Ukraine, “there is no legislation on the control of highly dangerous pathogens in the country, there are significant deficiencies in biosafety... The current state of resources makes it impossible for laboratories to respond effectively to public health emergencies”.

The document also emphasises that “over the past five years, Ukraine has shown no progress in implementing international health regulations of the World Health Organisation”.

The experts took careful note of the non-compliance with storing microbial collections like seen at the lab in Mariupol. The experts reported “most facilities are characterised by numerous gross violations, such as unlocked fencing systems, unlatching windows, broken or inactive pathogen restriction systems, lack of alarm systems”. The results of the review conclude that there is no system for protecting dangerous pathogens in Ukraine.

Despite all of these red flags and lack of compliance with all US bio-safety standards in the report, the organization concluded to approve the US Pentagon continuation of the DTRA program in Ukraine, which the Pentagon had invested over $250 million.

So at the very least, the US and Ukraine were intentionally negligent and endangered the lives of EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM on the planet with their reckless handling of the world’s most dangerous pathogens.

Russian MIL are suspicious of these biolab sponsors, in particular George Soros, as he has nothing to do with biosecurity issues. The Soros Foundation is mentioned with the notation “contributed to the development of an open and democratic society”. What in the hell does having biolabs in Ukraine have to do with “an open and democratic society”?

Russian MIL believe this to be further confirmation “that the official activities of the Pentagon in Ukraine are just a front for illegal military and biological research.”

Russia then goes on to specifically target the DNC and their intermediary organizations as the perpetrators behind this entire thing and are making a concerted effort to separate Trump and US institutions, and direct allegations firmly at the DNC. Russian MIL are calling out the Deep State specifically.

Also, take careful notice of the dates 2005-2016. The DTRA began in the year 2005 when DNC Senators Obama and Lugar travelled to Ukraine and “inspected WMD facilities”. 2016 is when Trump showed up. Russia are making a serious effort to make it known that Trump was not involved in this, and it was specifically the DNC/Deep State entities. This is more evidence suggesting Putin and Trump are working together in some capacity.

The report changes gears and then goes into more details on METABIOTA and their involvement in West Africa during the Ebola outbreak circa 2015. The activities of the company's employees have raised questions from the World Health Organisation (WHO) in terms of their compliance with biosafety requirements.

Russia MIL states pertaining to Hunter Biden’s Metabiota, “The available intelligence suggests that the company is merely a front for internationally dubious purposes and is used by the U.S. political elite to carry out opaque financial activities in various parts of the world”.

Yup. Putin and Russia are rooting out Deep State entities. “International dubious purposes used by the US Political elite”. SOUNDS LIKE TRUMP TALKING. Trump and Putin are lockstep.

According to the report from the international panel of experts from the Haemorrhagic Fever Consortium, “Metabiota staff had failed to comply with handling procedures and concealed the involvement of Pentagon staff who were using the company as a front. The main purpose of these activities was to isolate highly virulent variants of the virus from sick and dead people, as well as to export its strains to the USA.”

Russian MIL outlines Ebola’s 40% mortality rate and highly pathogenic in Humans. And then questions why Metabiota felt the need to study this highly dangerous virus in Ukraine.

The report contains other juicy information pertaining to not only US but other NATO countries and their biological involvement in Ukraine, specifically Germany.

Russia goes on to confirm all of this information and supporting documentation collected front the Special Military Operation will be made available in the “US Military Biological Dossier” expected the Autumn from the Russian Government.

Now, this is a lot of information, but what is the overall message you should gather from this?

What I see, is that the evidence of US DNC biological malfeasance continues to pile up as opposed to going away. Russia are finalizing their report and are not shying away from the global political stage in their allegations agains the US DNC and the accusations of bioweapon production. But most importantly, I see the conscious effort to make Trump appear as if he is not involved, and the continuous efforts from the Russian MIL to paint this is a subversion of the US MIL and Executive entires, and not the overall wishes of the US government.

Russia are making it very clear they are cognizant of the Deep State and are directing their allegations at the dubious international purposes of the US political elite.

A reckoning is coming. One way or the other. These are the most serious accusations known to man. This doesn’t end with a handshake or an “I’m sorry”. This ends with either perpetrators swinging, or it ends in nuclear fallout and a very hot WW3.

Pray it’s the former.

-Clandestine

https://t.me/mod_russia_en/2643

Clandestine’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

https://bioclandestine.substack.com/p/new-russian-mil-report-on-us-biolabs

Reprinted from Who is Robert Malone - What to do with a Problem like HHS? (Pt. 2, treating the disease) Robert W Malone MD, MS

Treating the Disease: HHS, The Administrative State, and Inverse Totalitarianism

To help understand and prioritize the stack of possible responses to the advanced state of corruption within the US HHS, it is useful to think of a pyramid-shaped hierarchy of problems and issues. The origin of these issues and the overall Administrative State can be traced to the Pendleton Act of 1883, which was established to end the patronage system which had preceded it. Of necessity, this brief analysis will only highlight a few of the issues with a particular focus on the COVIDcrisis, as a comprehensive summary and action plan would require hundreds if not thousands of pages of texts, graphs and figures. Just to illustrate the size and scope of the overall problem, please see the Biden-Harris Management Agenda Vision statement, which represents how the Administrative State sees itself, its problems, and its proposed solutions.

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

To provide context concerning the size of the HHS Administrative State, the President’s FY 2022 HHS budget proposes $131.8 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.5 trillion in mandatory funding. In contrast, President’s FY 2022 budget request for DoD is $715 billion. According to Federal News Network, the President’s Budget Request included approximately $62.5 billion for NIH, compared to $42.9 billion the agency received in the 2022 continuing resolution, and $42.8 billion in the final 2021 budget. The request represents a 7.2% increase for research project grants, a 50% increase in the buildings and facilities appropriation, and a 5% increase for training. The 2023 proposal includes $12.1 billion more for pandemic preparedness, and an additional $5 billion to stand up the new Advanced Research Project Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Based on 2022 numbers, the NIH budget (alone, not including ASPR/BARDA) represents 8.7% of the entire DoD budget.

Stopping Administrative State COVIDcrisis Overreach

The foundation of the HHS COVIDcrisis mismanagement is built upon the authorization that has allowed the HHS arm of the Administrative State to suspend a wide range of federal statutes and functionally bypass various aspects of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution: the “Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists”. First signed by HHS Secretary Alex Azar on 31 January, 2020, it was then renewed by Azar/Trump effective April 26, 2020, and again on 23 July (Azar/Trump), again on October 02, 2020 (Azar/Trump), January 07, 2021 (Azar/Trump), and then we switch Presidential administrations. The Biden administration did not miss a beat. On January 22, 2021, Acting HHS Secretary Norris Cochran notified governors across the country of details concerning the ongoing public health emergency declaration for COVID-19. Among other things, the Acting Secretary Cochran indicated that HHS will provide states with 60 days notice prior to the termination of the public health emergency declaration for COVID-19. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra then began renewing the Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists on April  15, 2021, renewed July 19, 2021; October 15, 2021; January 14, 2022; and April 12, 2022. Based on this schedule, another renewal is due during the third week in July, 2022. All of this is based upon the authority granted to the HHS arm of the Administrative State by Congress when it passed the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA) in 2013.

According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA) amended section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3, is intended to provide more flexibility to the Health and Human Services Secretary to authorize the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).  The Secretary is no longer required to make a formal determination of a public health emergency under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d before declaring that circumstances justify issuing an EUA.  Under section 564 of the FFD&C Act, as amended, the Secretary now may determine that there is a public health emergency or significant potential for a public health emergency that affects, or has significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent(s).  The Secretary may then declare that the circumstances justify emergency authorization of a product, enabling the FDA to issue an EUA  before the emergency occurs.

Based on my understanding of Federal Administrative Law, the PAHPRA is unconstitutional and should be immediately rescinded by the courts due to the nondelegation doctrine. In my opinion, this is the first action which should be taken to dismantle the HHS overreach which has yielded the COVIDcrisis public health fiasco, and will not require a major electoral turnover before proceeding. As previously discussed, the “nondelegation doctrine” is arguably the most significant Administrative State issue being actively considered within the current Supreme Court. The theory is predicated on the Constitution’s Article I, which provides that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress. This grant of power, the argument goes, cannot be redelegated to the executive branch. If Congress grants an agency effectively unlimited discretion (as it has with PAHPRA), then it violates the constitutional “nondelegation” rule. If the PAHPRA is overturned, then the whole cascade of HHS Administrative State actions which have enabled bypassing of normal bioethical (see the “Common Rule” 48 CFR § 1352.235-70 - Protection of human subjects) and both normal drug and vaccine regulatory procedures. Furthermore, the PAHPRA is what enables Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of drugs and vaccines, and if overruled, the regulatory authorization for these unlicensed EUA-allowed would be jeopardized. In addition to challenging the legitimacy of the PAHPRA based on the nondelegation doctrine, similar challenges should be raised with the 21st Century Cures Act (HR 34; PL: 114-255), and Public Law 115-92 (HR 4374).

Dismantling The HHS Administrative State

The leadership hierarchy of the US Federal Administrative State is structured along the same lines as the military, with a progressive series of general service ranks (GS-1 through GS-15, with 15 being the most senior) which are lead by a separate leadership group called the Senior Executive Service (SES V through I, with SES I being most senior), which oversees civilian government operations. According to the Office of Personnel Management;

The Senior Executive Service (SES) lead America’s workforce. As the keystone of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the SES was established to “...ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.” These leaders possess well-honed executive skills and share a broad perspective on government and a public service commitment that is grounded in the Constitution.

Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. SES members are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) manages the overall Federal executive personnel program, providing the day-to-day oversight and assistance to agencies as they develop, select, and manage their Federal executives.

In general, the SES is the leadership of the Administrative state, but it is not the only category of employment which has amassed power. Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the highest paid federal employees ($434,312 base salary), is exempt from being a member of the SES but rather serves taxpayers as a Medical Officer at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Medical Officer was the 10th most popular job in the U.S. Government during 2020, with 33,865 employed under this category. Anthony S. Fauci is employed at the highest medical officer rank of RF-00 under the employees appointed and compensated as special consultants under 42 u.s.c. 209(f).

Despite the fact that Dr. Fauci is a consultant, he is still subject to 42-160 Conduct Laws and Regulations, which states that Title 42 employees must comply with all ethical and conduct-related laws and regulations applicable to other Executive Branch employees. These include laws concerning financial interests, financial disclosure, and conduct regulations promulgated by the Department, by the Office of Government Ethics, and other agencies. Discharge of Title 42 employees under the ethical and conduct-related laws and regulations applicable to Executive Branch employees, or to 42-140 Performance Management and Conduct breaches (for example, lying in sworn congressional testimony), often requires up to two years of legal processes, which gives rise to the common practice of assigning such personnel to a proverbial “broom closet” office without windows, telephone or assigned tasks.

Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute has summarized one set of strategies developed to dismantle the Administrative State. President Trump tried to break the power of the SES using a series of executive orders (E.O. 13837, E.O. 13836, and E.O.13839) that would have diminished the access of federal employees (including the SES) to labor-union protection when being pressed on the terms of their employment. All three of these were struck down with a decision by a DC District Court. The presiding judge was Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was later rewarded for her decision with a nomination to the Supreme Court, which was affirmed by the US Senate. Jackson’s judgment was later reversed but Trump’s actions were embroiled in a juridical tangle that rendered them moot. However, in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions, it is possible that the structure of these executive orders may withstand future judicial action. Two weeks before the 2020 general election, on October 21, 2020, Donald Trump issued an executive order (E.O. 13957) on “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service.” which was designed to overcome the prior objections and involved creation of a new category of federal employment called Schedule F. Employees of the federal government classified as Schedule F would have been subject to control by the elected president and other representatives, and these employees would have included:

“Positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition shall be listed in Schedule F. In appointing an individual to a position in Schedule F, each agency shall follow the principle of veteran preference as far as administratively feasible.”

The order demanded a thorough governmental review of what is essentially a reclassification of the SES.

“Each head of an executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but excluding the Government Accountability Office) shall conduct, within 90 days of the date of this order, a preliminary review of agency positions covered by subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, and shall conduct a complete review of such positions within 210 days of the date of this order.”

The Washington Post, which often functions as the official organ of the Administrative State, certainly appreciated the power of this approach when it was proposed, breathlessly posting an OpEd entitled “Trump’s newest executive order could prove one of his most insidious”:

“The directive from the White House, issued late Wednesday, sounds technical: creating a new “Schedule F” within the “excepted service” of the federal government for employees in policymaking roles, and directing agencies to determine who qualifies. Its implications, however, are profound and alarming. It gives those in power the authority to fire more or less at will as many as tens of thousands of workers currently in the competitive civil service, from managers to lawyers to economists to, yes, scientists. This week’s order is a major salvo in the president’s onslaught against the cadre of dedicated civil servants whom he calls the “deep state” — and who are really the greatest strength of the U.S. government.”

Jeffrey Tucker summarizes the subsequent cascade of events:

“Ninety days after October 21, 2020 would have been January 19, 2021, the day before the new president was to be inaugurated. The Washington Post commented ominously: “Mr. Trump will try to realize his sad vision in his second term, unless voters are wise enough to stop him.”

Biden was declared the winner due mostly to mail-in ballots. 

On January 21, 2021, the day after inauguration, Biden reversed the order. It was one of his first actions as president. No wonder, because, as The Hill reported, this executive order would have been “the biggest change to federal workforce protections in a century, converting many federal workers to ‘at will’ employment.” 

How many federal workers in agencies would have been newly classified at Schedule F? We do not know because only one completed the review before their jobs were saved by the election result. The one that did was the Congressional Budget Office. Its conclusion: fully 88% of employees would have been newly classified as Schedule F, thus allowing the president to terminate their employment. 

This would have been a revolutionary change, a complete remake of Washington, DC, and all politics as usual. 

If the HHS Administrative State is to be dismantled, so that it will become possible to manage the various Executive Branch agencies once again, Schedule F provides an excellent strategy and template to achieve the objective. If this most important of all tasks is not achieved, then we will remain at risk that HHS will once again attempt to trade our national sovereignty for additional power by aligning with the WHO, as was recently attempted in the case of the surreptitious January 28, 2022 proposed modifications to the International Health Regulations. These actions, which were not made public until April 12, 2022, clearly demonstrate that the HHS Administrative State represents a clear and present danger to the US Constitution and national sovereignty, and must be dismantled as soon as possible.

Stopping Corporate-Administrative Collusion and Corruption

The third core problem which must be addressed involves the various laws, administrative policies, and surreptitious practices which have empowered the symbiotic (or is is parasitic?) alliance which has formed between the medical-pharmaceutical complex and the HHS Administrative State. Once again, it is important to recognize the fundamental political structure which has been created; a Fascist Inverse Totalitarianism. The face of modern fascism is often stereotyped by the corporate press as a group of Tiki-torch waving Proud Boys in uniforms marching in Charlottesville and committing acts of violence in person with bats or via automobile. But this is not modern fascism, it is a group of mostly young men aping superficial features of the German Third Reich while wearing outdated uniforms and chanting repugnant slogans designed to provoke outrage. Fascism is a political system which is otherwise known as Corporatism, that being the fusion of corporate and state power. And as previously discussed, currently the real power of the US Government lies in the Fourth Estate, the Administrative State. To break up these “public-private partnerships” which compromise the ability of HHS to perform essential oversight duties and truly protect the health of American Citizens from the rapacious practices and disgusting ethics of the medical-pharmaceutical complex (in which they behave as predators, and we have become the prey), we must sever the financial and organizational ties that bind the medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex to the HHS Administrative State, and which have been incrementally developed and deployed over many decades.

To return balance and Congressionally intended function to the HHS, the following steps must be accomplished, none of which can be accomplished until the power of the HHS Administrative State has been broken and the SES has been brought to heel through combined efforts of the Supreme Court, and both a new Congress and a new Executive branch.

  1. The Bayh-Dole act must be modified, administratively or legislatively, so that it no longer apply to federal employees. HHS scientists and administrators must not be receiving royalties from intellectual property licensed to the medical-pharmaceutical complex, as this creates multiple layers of both explicit and occult financial conflicts of interest.

  2. The congressional charters for the “Foundation for the National Institutes of Health” and the “CDC Foundation” must be revoked. These public-private partnership organizations have created unaccountable slush funds which are exploited by the HHS Administrative State and SES to circumvent the will of Congress (by enabling activities neither funded nor authorized by Congress) and embody the fusion of interests between the medical-pharmaceutical complex and the HHS Administrative State.

  3. The regulator-industry revolving door. The revolving door between HHS employees and medical-pharmaceutical complex must somehow be jammed shut. Mere awareness of the probability of lucrative employment by Pharma upon retirement or departure from HHS oversight roles already biases almost every action of FDA and CDC senior and junior staff. I do not know how to accomplish this from a legal standpoint, I just know that the task must be accomplished if the public interest is to be better served.

  4. Industry Fees. The idea of forcing the medical-pharmaceutical complex to pay for the cost of regulation was naive, and this practice must also be halted. If the taxpaying citizens of the USA want safe and effective vaccines and drugs, then they need to pay for the cost to insure that Pharma is forced to play by the rules. And when it does not, the resulting actions and fines must be so powerful that they cannot just be written off as a cost of doing business.

  5. Vaccine liability indemnification is another legislative strategy which has clearly failed to meet its intended purpose. The vaccine industry has become an unaccountable monster which is consuming both adults and children. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was signed into law by United States President Ronald Reagan as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986, and has created an incentive structure with the familiar problem of coupling private profit to public risk, and has resulted in widespread corruption of both FDA/CBER and CDC.

  6. Speedy approvals. Yet another “innovation” developed by Congress with wide latitude for implementation by the Administrative State, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was a law passed by the United States Congress in 1992 which allowed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to collect fees from drug manufacturers to fund the new drug approval process. The inefficiency of the FDA regulatory process has lead (largely via administrative fiat) to a series of “expedited approval” pathways, which in turn have been amplified and exploited by Pharma to advance its own objectives, often at the expense of the public. Another case of unintended blowback in which the best laid plans have been twisted by the Administrative State to the point of no longer serving the original intent of Congress. This is another situation which deserves legal scrutiny in light of the revisitation of the nondelegation doctrine.

  7. External Advisors. External advisors are often used to provide cover for bureaucrats, and particularly for SES staff, so that a carefully handpicked external committee can be relied upon to produce the intended result while allowing the administrator to avoid responsibility and maintain plausible deniability for decisions which may be unpopular with the citizenry but lucrative or otherwise beneficial for the medical-industrial complex. Once again, while the original intent may have been noble, in practice this has become just another tool which the Administrative State has bent to do its bidding as well as that of its corporate partners.

  8. Transparency, conflicts of interest, and data. If we have learned anything from the COVIDcrisis, it is that the HHS Administrative State is quite willing to withhold data from both outside scientists and the general public. Clearly this must stop, and once again recent district court decisions kindle hope that forcing the SES and Administrative State to become more open and transparent is an achievable objective.

  9. Too big to fail. Many of the subdivisions of HHS have become too large and unwieldy, and a rigorous assessment of mission, priorities, productivity and value provided must be performed followed by breaking up the large power centers (NIAID being one example), refocusing the overall enterprise on health and wellness, and eliminating non-essential functions.

Conclusions

Many voices have been raised which advocate some combination of pitchforks and torches for what the COVIDcrisis has clearly revealed to be a politicized and corrupted HHS and its associated subsidiary agencies and institutes. It may be that it will be necessary to create a parallel organization, mature it to the point that it can assume the essential functions of the current HHS, and then demolish the (at that point) obsolete HHS structure. But in the interim, I am convinced that the reforms proposed above could certainly advance the ball downfield towards an HHS which would provide greater value to US taxpayers and citizens, and which could be more effectively controlled by Congress and the Executive rather than operating largely autonomously to serve the interests of the Administrative State itself.

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/what-to-do-with-a-problem-like-hhs-c4e

Reprinted from Who is Robert Malone?

Defining the Problem: HHS and The Administrative State

Many have come to believe that if Dr. Anthony Fauci either resigns or is removed from his position as Director of the The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), then the whole COVIDcrisis problem of chronic, strategic and tactical administrative overreach, dishonesty, mismanagement and ethical breaches within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be resolved. Under this theory, Dr. Fauci is responsible for policies which were developed during the AIDScrisis and then flourished during the COVIDcrisis, and once the tumor is removed the patient will recover. I strongly disagree with this magical thinking; I believe that Dr. Fauci represents a symptom, not the cause of the current problems within HHS. Dr. Fauci, who joined the HHS bureaucracy as a way to avoid the Viet Nam draft and personifies many of the administrative problems that have accelerated since that period, would merely be replaced by another NIAID Director who might even become worse. The underlying problem is a perverted bureaucratic system of governance which is completely insulated from functional oversight by elected officials.

The “administrative state” is a general term used to describe the entrenched form of government that currently controls almost all levers of federal power in the United States, with the possible exception of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The premature leaking of the SCOTUS majority decision concerning Roe v Wade to corporate press allies was essentially a preemptive strike by the administrative state in response to an action which threatened its power. The threat being mitigated was the constitutionalist logic upon which the legal argument was based, that being that authority to define rights not specifically defined in the US Constitution as being federally granted vests with individual states. Played out under the political cover of one of the most contentious political topics in modern US history, this was merely another skirmish demonstrating that the entrenched bureaucracy and its allies in the corporate media will continue to resist any constitutional or statutory restrictions on its power and privilege. Resistance to any form of control or oversight has been a consistent bureaucratic behavior throughout the history of the United States government, and this trend has accelerated since the end of the Second World War. More recently, this somewhat existential Constitutionalist threat to the Administrative State was validated in the case of West Virginia vs The Environmental Protection Agency, in which the court determined that when federal agencies issue regulations with sweeping economic and political consequences the regulations are presumptively invalid unless Congress has specifically authorized the action. With this decision, for the first time in modern history boundaries have started to be imposed on the expansion of the power of unelected senior administrators within the Federal bureaucracy.

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Legal underpinning for The Administrative State.

Nondelegation doctrine

Administrative law rests on two fictions. The first, the nondelegation doctrine, imagines that Congress does not delegate legislative power to agencies. The second, which flows from the first, is that the administrative state thus exercises only executive power, even if that power sometimes looks legislative or judicial. These fictions are required by a formalist reading of the Constitution, whose Vesting Clauses permit only Congress to make law and the President only to execute the law. This formalist reading requires us to accept as a matter of practice unconstitutional delegation and the resulting violation of the separation of powers, while pretending as a matter of doctrine that no violation occurs.

The non-delegation doctrine is a principle in administrative law that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities. This prohibition typically involves Congress delegating its powers to administrative agencies or to private organizations. 

In J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), the Supreme Court clarified that when Congress does give an agency the ability to regulate, Congress must give the agencies an "intelligible principle” on which to base their regulations. This standard is viewed as quite lenient, and has rarely, if ever, been used to strike down legislation.

In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court held that "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested."

Chevron deference

One of the most important principles in administrative law, The “Chevron deference” is a term coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984), referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. 

In essence, the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency.  In other words, when the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute. 

Generally, to be accorded Chevron deference, the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute must be permissible, which the court has defined to mean “rational” or “reasonable.” In determining the reasonableness of a particular construction of a statute by the agency, the age of that administrative interpretation as well as the congressional action or inaction in response to that interpretation at issue can be a useful guide.

Judicial Threats to the Administrative State

None of the issues involved in current debates over these two core doctrines of administrative law has the power to fully deconstruct the administrative state. But current debates and decisions could contribute some constitutionally informed limits on the power, discretion, and independence of unelected administrators. Together, recent and pending Supreme Court might help reconstruct a constitutional state which is more closely aligned with the original intent and vision of the founders.

Very few appreciate that these issues underly recent decisions concerning who to appoint to the Supreme Court. Trump’s first two appointments to the high court—Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—were two of the nation’s leading judicial minds on administrative law, and White House Counsel Don McGahn made clear that this was no coincidence. So too with Trump’s appointments to the lower courts, which included administrative-law experts such as the D.C. Circuit’s Neomi Rao and Greg Katsas, and the Fifth Circuit’s Andrew Oldham.

COVIDcrisis and the Administrative State

The arc of the history of the COVIDcrisis encompasses collusive planning between a wide range of corporate interests, globalists, and the administrative state (Event 201); subsequent efforts to cover up administrative state culpability in creating the crisis; followed by gross mismanagement of public health policies, decision making, and communication all acting in lockstep with the preceding planning sessions. This dysfunctional planning-response coupling revealed for all to see that the US Department of Health and Human Services has become a leading example illustrating the practical consequences of this degenerate, corrupt and unaccountable system of government.

Across two administrations lead by presidents who have championed very different worldviews, HHS COVIDcrisis policies have continued with little or no change; one administration seemingly flowing directly into the next with hardly a hiccough. If anything, under Biden the HHS arm of the US administrative state became more authoritarian, more unaccountable, and more decoupled from any need to consider the general social and economic consequences of their actions. As this has progressed, the HHS bureaucracy has become increasingly obsequious and deferential to the economic interests of the medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex. This is most clearly evident in the maintenance of a state of medical emergency, which provides HHS bureaucrats with almost unlimited powers to bypass constitutional restrictions, despite the clear evidence that there is no longer any medical emergency. Maintaining the ruse of an official public health emergency has been necessary both to maintain power as well as US Government contract revenue for those corporations who have been making obscene profits from selling the “Emergency Use Authorized” medical countermeasures that have been allowed to bypass long-established regulatory, bioethical, and legal liability norms. A public-private partnership like nothing the US had ever seen before, making the War Profiteering against which Harry Truman had campaigned look like child’s play.

There is an organizational paradox which enables immense power to be amassed by those who have risen to the top of the civilian scientific corps within HHS.  These bureaucrats have almost unprecedented access to the public purse, are technically employed by the executive, but are also almost completely protected from accountability by the executive branch of government that is tasked with managing them- and therefore these bureaucrats are unaccountable to those who actually pay the bills for their activities (taxpayers).  To the extent these administrators are able to be held to task, this accountability flows indirectly from congress.  Their organizational budgets can be either enhanced or cut during following fiscal years, but otherwise they are largely protected from corrective action including termination of employment absent some major moral transgression.  In a Machiavellian sense, these senior administrators function as The Prince, each federal health institute functions as a semi-autonomous city-state, and the administrators and their respective courtiers act accordingly.  To complete this analogy, congress functions similar the Vatican during the 16th century, with each Prince vying for funding and power by currying favor with influential archbishops.  As validation for this analogy, we have the theater observed on C-SPAN each time a minority congressperson or senator queries an indignant scientific administrator, such as has been repeatedly observed with Anthony Fauci’s haughty exchanges during congressional testimony.

In his masterpiece “The Best and the Brightest: Kennedy-Johnson Administrations”, David Halberstam cites a quote from New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan to illustrate the role of the administrative state on the series of horrifically poor decisions which resulted in one of the greatest US public policy failures of the 20th century - the Viet Nam war. In retrospect, the parallels between the mismanagement, propaganda, willingness to suspend prior ethical norms, and chronic lies which define that deadly fiasco are remarkably similar to those which characterize the COVIDcrisis response. And as in the present, the surreptitious hand of the US intelligence community was often in the background, always pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Quoting from Halberstam and Sheehan;

“Since covert operations were part of the game, over a period of time there was in the high levels of the bureaucracy, particularly as the CIA became more powerful, a gradual acceptance of covert operations and dirty tricks as part of normal diplomatic-political maneuvering; higher and higher government officials became co-opted (as the President’s personal assistant, McGeorge Bundy would oversee the covert operations for both Kennedy and Johnson, thus bringing, in a sense, presidential approval). It was a reflection of the frustration which the national security people, private men all, felt in matching the foreign policy of a totalitarian society, which gave so much more freedom to its officials and seemingly provided so few checks on its own leaders. To be on the inside and oppose or question covert operations was considered a sign of weakness. (In 1964 a well-bred young CIA official, wondering whether we had the right to try some of the black activities on the North, was told by Desmond FitzGerald, the number-three man in the Agency, “Don’t be so wet”—the classic old-school putdown of someone who knows the real rules of the game to someone softer, questioning the rectitude of the rules.) It was this acceptance of covert operations by the Kennedy Administration which had brought Adlai Stevenson to the lowest moment of his career during the Bay of Pigs, a special shame as he had stood and lied at the UN about things that he did not know, but which, of course, the Cubans knew. Covert operations often got ahead of the Administration itself and pulled the Administration along with them, as the Bay of Pigs had shown—since the planning and training were all done, we couldn’t tell those freedom-loving Cubans that it was all off, could we, argued Allen Dulles. He had pulled public men like the President with him into that particular disaster. At the time, Fulbright had argued against it, had not only argued that it would fail, which was easy enough to say, but he had gone beyond this, and being a public man, entered the rarest of arguments, an argument against it on moral grounds, that it was precisely our reluctance to do things like this which differentiated us from the Soviet Union and made us special, made it worth being a democracy. “One further point must be made about even covert support of a Castro overthrow; it is in violation of the spirit and probably the letter as well, of treaties to which the United States is a party and of U.S. domestic legislation. . . . To give this activity even covert support is of a piece with the hypocrisy and cynicism for which the United States is constantly denouncing the Soviet Union in the United Nations and elsewhere. This point will not be lost on the rest of the world—nor on our own consciences for that matter,” he wrote Kennedy. But arguments like this found little acceptance in those days; instead the Kennedy Administration had been particularly aggressive in wanting to match the Communists at new modern guerrilla and covert activities, and the lines between what a democracy could and could not do were more blurred in those years than others.

These men, largely private, were functioning on a level different from the public policy of the United States, and years later when New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan read through the entire documentary history of the war, that history known as the Pentagon Papers, he would come away with one impression above all, which was that the government of the United States was not what he had thought it was; it was as if there were an inner U.S. government, what he called “a centralized state, far more powerful than anything else, for whom the enemy is not simply the Communists but everything else, its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress, foreign and friendly governments—all these are potentially antagonistic. It had survived and perpetuated itself,” Sheehan continued, “often using the issue of anti-Communism as a weapon against the other branches of government and the press, and finally, it does not function necessarily for the benefit of the Republic but rather for its own ends, its own perpetuation; it has its own codes which are quite different from public codes. Secrecy was a way of protecting itself, not so much from threats by foreign governments, but from detection from its own population on charges of its own competence and wisdom.” Each succeeding Administration, Sheehan noted, was careful, once in office, not to expose the weaknesses of its predecessor. After all, essentially the same people were running the governments, they had continuity to each other, and each succeeding Administration found itself faced with virtually the same enemies. Thus the national security apparatus kept its continuity, and every outgoing President tended to rally to the side of each incumbent President.

The parallels of organizational culture are uncanny, and as previously discussed, have flourished under the guise of the need to manage the national biodefense enterprise. Since the 2001 “Amerithrax” Anthrax spore “attacks”, HHS has increasingly been horizontally integrated with the intelligence community as well as with the Department of Homeland Security to form a health security state with enormous ability to shape and enforce “consensus” through widespread propaganda, censorship, “nudge” technology and intentional manipulation of the “Mass Formation” hypnosis process using modern adaptations of methods originally developed by Dr Joseph Goebbels.

The Administrative State and Inverted Totalitarianism

The term “inverted totalitarianism” was first coined in 2003 by the political theorist and writer Dr. Sheldon Wolin, and then his analysis was extended by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco in their 2012 book “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt”. Wolin used the term "inverted totalitarianism" to illuminate totalitarian aspects of the American political system, and to highlight his opinion that the modern American federal government has similarities to the historic German Nazi government. Hedges and Sacco built upon Wolin’s insights to extend the definition of inverted totalitarianism to describe a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy, and where macro-economics has become the primary force driving political decisions (rather than ethics, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, or vox populi). Under inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and living being becomes commodified and exploited by large corporations to the point of collapse, as excess consumerism and sensationalism lull and manipulate the citizenry into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government. Inverted totalitarianism is now what the government of the United States has devolved into, as Wolin had warned might happen many years ago in his book “Democracy Incorporated”. The administrative state has turned the USA into a “managed democracy” lead by a bureaucracy which cannot be held accountable by the elected representatives of the people. Sometimes called the 4th estate, this monster is also referred to as the “deep state”, the civil service, the centralized state, or the administrative state.

Political systems which have devolved into inverted totalitarianism do not have an authoritarian leader, but instead are run by a non-transparent group of bureaucrats. The “leader” basically serves the interests of the true bureaucratic administrative leaders. In other words, an unelected, invisible ruling class of bureaucrat-administrators runs the country from within.

Corporatist (Fascist) partnering with the Administrative State

Because science, medicine and politics are three threads woven into the same cloth of public policy, we have to work to fix all three simultaneously.  The corruption of political systems by global corporatists has filtered down to our science, medicine and healthcare systems. The perversion of science and medicine by corporate interests is expanding its reach; it is pernicious and intractable.  Regulatory capture by corporate interests runs rampant throughout our politics, governmental agencies and institutes.  The corporatists have infiltrated all three branches of government. Corporate-public partnerships that have become so trendy have another name, that name is Fascism- the political science term for the fusion of the interests of corporations and the state. Basically, the tension between the interest of the republic and its citizens (which Jefferson felt should be primary), and the financial interests of business and corporations (Hamilton’s ideal) has swung far too far to the interests of corporations and their billionaire owners at the expense of the general population.

Development of inverted totalitarianism is often driven by the personal financial interests of individual bureaucrats, and many western democracies have succumbed to this process. Bureaucrats are easily influenced and coopted by corporate interests due to both the lure of powerful jobs after federal employment (“revolving door”) and the capture of legislative bodies by the lobbyists serving concealed corporate interests.

In an investigative article published in the British Medical Journal entitled “From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?”, reporter Maryanne Demasi documents the processes which drive development of public-private partnerships between administrative state apparatchiks and the corporations which they are paid to regulate and oversee. Five different mechanisms driving the cooptation process were identified in virtually all of the six leading medical product regulatory agencies (Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, the UK, and US):

Industry Fees. Industry money saturates the globe’s leading regulators. The majority of regulators’ budget—particularly the portion focused on drugs—is derived from industry fees. Of the six regulators, Australia had the highest proportion of budget from industry fees (96%) and in 2020-2021 approved more than nine of every 10 drug company applications. Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) firmly denies that its almost exclusive reliance on pharmaceutical industry funding is a conflict of interest (COI).

An analysis of three decades of PDUFA in the US has shown how a reliance on industry fees is contributing to a decline in evidentiary standards, ultimately harming patients. In Australia, experts have called for a complete overhaul of the TGA’s structure and function, arguing that the agency has become too close to industry.

Sociologist Donald Light of Rowan University in New Jersey, US, who has spent decades studying drug regulation, says, “Like the FDA, the TGA was founded to be an independent institute. However, being largely funded by fees from the companies whose products it is charged to evaluate is a fundamental conflict of interest and a prime example of institutional corruption.”

Light says the problem with drug regulators is widespread. Even the FDA—the most well funded regulator—reports 65% of its funding for the evaluation of drugs comes from industry user fees, and over the years user fees have expanded to generic drugs, biosimilars, and medical devices.

“It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organization independently and rigorously assessing medicines. They’re not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data. Doctors and patients must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding.”

External Advisors. Concern over COIs is not just directed at those who work for the regulators but extends to the advisory panels intended to provide regulators with independent expert advice. A BMJ investigation last year found several expert advisers for covid-19 vaccine advisory committees in the UK and US had financial ties with vaccine manufacturers—ties the regulators judged as acceptable. See here for further details. A large study that investigated the impact of COIs among FDA advisory committee members over 15 years found that those with financial interests solely in the sponsoring firm were more likely to vote in favor of the sponsor’s product, (see here) and that people who served on advisory boards solely for the sponsor were significantly more likely to vote in favor of the sponsor’s product.

Joel Lexchin, a drug policy researcher at York University in Toronto, says, “People should know about any financial COIs that those giving advice have so that they can evaluate whether those COIs have influenced the advice they are hearing. People need to be able to trust what they hear from public health officials and a lack of transparency erodes trust.”

Of the six major regulators, only Canada’s drug regulators did not routinely seek advice from an independent committee and its evaluation team was the only one completely free of financial COIs. European, Japanese, and UK regulators publish a list of members with their full declarations online for public access, while the FDA judges COIs on a meeting-by-meeting basis and can grant waivers allowing participation of members.

Transparency, conflicts of interest, and data. Most regulatory agencies do not undertake their own assessment of individual patient data, but rather rely on summaries prepared by the drug sponsor. The TGA, for example, says it conducts its covid-19 vaccine assessments based on “the information provided by the vaccine’s sponsor.” According to a FOI request from last May, the TGA said it had not seen the source data from the covid-19 vaccine trials. Rather, the agency evaluated the manufacturer’s “aggregate or pooled data.”

Among global regulators, only two—the FDA and PMDA—routinely obtain patient level datasets. And neither proactively publish these data. Recently, a group of more than 80 professors and researchers called the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency sued the FDA for access to all the data which the agency used to grant licensure for Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine. (see here) The FDA argued that the burden on the agency was too great and requested that it be allowed to release appropriately redacted documents at the rate of 500 pages a month, a speed that would take approximately 75 years to complete. In a win for transparency advocates, this was overturned by a US Federal Court Judge, ruling that the FDA would need to turn over all the appropriately redacted data within eight months. Pfizer sought to intervene to ensure “information that is exempt from disclosure under the FOI act is not disclosed inappropriately,” but its request was denied.

Speedy approvals. Following the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, PDUFA “user fees” were introduced in the US to fund additional staff to help speed the approval of new treatments. Since then, there has been concern over the way it moulded the regulatory review process—for example, by creating “PDUFA dates,” deadlines for the FDA to review applications, and a host of “expedited pathways” for speeding drugs to market. The practice is now a global norm.

Today, all major regulators offer expedited pathways that are used in a significant proportion of new drug approvals. In 2020, 68% of drug approvals in the US were through expedited pathways, 50% in Europe, and 36% in the UK. Courtney Davis, a medical and political sociologist at the Kings College London, says that a general taxation or a drug company levy would be better options to fund regulators. “PDUFA is the worst kind of arrangement since it allows industry to shape FDA policies and priorities in a very direct way. Each time PDUFA was reauthorised, industry had a seat at the table to renegotiate the terms of its funding and determine which performance metrics and goals the agency should be evaluated by. Hence the FDA’s focus on making quicker and quicker approval decisions—even for drugs not judged to be therapeutically important for patients.”

The regulator-industry revolving door. Critics argue that regulatory capture is not only being baked in by the way in which agencies are funded, but also staffed. A “revolving door” has seen many agency officials end up working or consulting for the same companies they regulated.

At the FDA, generally regarded as the world’s premier regulator, nine out of 10 of its past commissioners between 2006 and 2019 went on to secure roles linked with pharmaceutical companies, and its 11th and most recent, Stephen Hahn, is working for Flagship Pioneering, a company that acts as an incubator for new biopharmaceutical companies.

In the case of both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), there are also direct financial ties that bind corporations, philanthropic capitalist non-governmental organizations (such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), and the administrative state. The likes of you and I cannot “give” to the federal government as under the Federal Acquisition Regulations this is considered to be a risk for exerting undue influence. But the CDC has established a non-profit “CDC Foundation”. According to the CDC’s own website,

“Established by Congress as an independent, nonprofit organization, the CDC Foundation is the sole entity authorized by Congress to mobilize philanthropic partners and private-sector resources to support CDC’s critical health protection mission.”

Likewise, the NIH has established the “Foundation for the National Institutes of Health”, currently headed by CEO Dr. Julie Gerberding (formerly CDC director, then President of Merck Vaccines, then Chief Patient Officer and Executive Vice President, Population Health & Sustainability at Merck and Company - where she had responsibility for Merck’s ESG score compliance). Dr. Gerberding’s career provides a case history illustrating the ties between the administrative state and corporate America.

These congressionally chartered non-profit organizations provide a vehicle whereby the medical-pharmaceutical complex can funnel money into the NIH and CDC to influence both research agendas and policies.

And then we have the strongest ties that bind the for-profit medical-pharmaceutical complex to CDC and NIH employees and administrators, the Bayh-Dole act. Wikipedia provides a succinct summary:

The Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980) is United States legislation permitting ownership by contractors of inventions arising from federal government-funded research. Sponsored by two senators, Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas, the Act was adopted in 1980, is codified at 94 Stat. 3015, and in 35 U.S.C. § 200–212,[1] and is implemented by 37 C.F.R. 401 for federal funding agreements with contractors[2] and 37 C.F.R 404 for licensing of inventions owned by the federal government.[3]

A key change made by Bayh–Dole was in the procedures by which federal contractors that acquired ownership of inventions made with federal funding could retain that ownership. Before the Bayh–Dole Act, the Federal Procurement Regulation required the use of a patent rights clause that in some cases required federal contractors or their inventors to assign inventions made under contract to the federal government unless the funding agency determined that the public interest was better served by allowing the contractor or inventor to retain principal or exclusive rights.[4] The National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Commerce had implemented programs that permitted non-profit organizations to retain rights to inventions upon notice without requesting an agency determination.[5] By contrast, Bayh–Dole uniformly permits non-profit organizations and small business firm contractors to retain ownership of inventions made under contract and which they have acquired, provided that each invention is timely disclosed and the contractor elects to retain ownership in that invention.[6]

A second key change with Bayh-Dole was to authorize federal agencies to grant exclusive licenses to inventions owned by the federal government.[7]

While originally intended to create incentives for federally funded academia, non-profit organizations, and federal contractors to protect inventions and other intellectual property so that the intellectual products of taxpayer investments could help drive commercialization, the terms of Bayh-Dole have now also been applied to federal employees, resulting in massive personal payments to specific employees as well as the agencies, branches and divisions for which they work. This creates perverse incentives for federal employees to favor specific companies and specific technologies that they have contributed relative to competing companies and technologies. This policy is particularly insidious in the case of federal employees who have a role in determining the direction of research funding allocation, such as is the case with Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Having taken a shot at defining the problem of HHS as a leading branch of the Administrative State in Part 1, in Part 2 various actions designed to break the power of the Administrative State (attempted or are in progress) will be reviewed and summarized.

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/what-to-do-with-a-problem-like-hhs

Reprinted from THE EXPOSE - The Suicide of Europe: Europe’s Collective Deathwish BY RHODA WILSON

Mass migration is not, as it seems, an organic emanation of humanity from poor countries, but a calculated project to repopulate the territory of the declining West, with racism its chief instrument, wrote John Waters.

In a two-part series titled ‘Europe’s Death Rattle’, John Waters explores mass migration with reference to Stephen Smith’s book ‘The Scramble for Europe: Young Africa on its way to the Old Continent’.

Part I discusses – as the culmination of a long-time plan – a global calamity of food scarcity, due to Covid measures and ‘sanctions’, which will cause record numbers of mainly African migrants to enter Europe seeking food.

As Waters’ articles are longer than most would read in one sitting, we are breaking Part II, headed ‘Open Borders, Shut Mouths’, into shorter sections and publishing them as a series titled ‘The Suicide of Europe’. This article is the eighth in our series. 

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

By John Waters

The rich north and the poorer south

One of the things the manipulators and agitators fail to reveal is that, as Stephen Smith outlines, the divides in the contemporary world are not so much, as previously, between poor countries and rich countries but internal to countries in both the ‘rich’ North and the poor(er) South.  Globalisation has, since about 1980, created new forms of economic division, by which this rich-poor split became internal to nations, North and South, rather than between First and Third words per se

‘Today,’ writes Smith, ‘the West shares with “the rest” the fact that wealth no longer divides the world into rich and poor nations as much as it separates the winners and losers of globalisation in each country. Africa, unfortunately, is the only part of the world that has so far lost out on both counts: its internal disparities have dramatically increased, while at the same time it has not gained enough ground relative to the standard of living in the developed world due to its population growth and the law of large numbers.’  This is in part due to the constant haemorrhaging of its population to wealthier lands.

And all these conditions have been exponentially exacerbated by Covid-justified asset-stripping of the middle-classes of all countries in favour of the richest-of-the-rich in the three years since The Scramble for Europe was published. 

Europe’s collective death wish

There are those who, surveying these incontrovertible facts, decide that Europe, the Old Continent, has contracted some kind of collective suicidal ideation, a death wish, perhaps based on an inability to imagine itself beyond its present ‘progressive’ incarnation. 

The British writer, Douglas Murray, in his 2017 book The Strange Death of Europe, writes: ‘Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether the European people choose to go along with this is, naturally, another matter . . . I mean that the civilisation we know as Europe is in the process of committing suicide and that neither Britain nor any other Western European country can avoid that fate because we all appear to suffer from the same symptoms and maladies. As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.’

Most European countries are now struggling to perform the impossible trick of maintaining themselves at half the replacement rate for indigenous populations: 2.1 children per adult female. By 2060, applied to present demographics at present rates of population decline, there will be a 45 to 50 per cent fall in the population of what is now the European Union. At present rates of decline, the indigenous populations of many European countries will have collapsed to the tune of 85 per cent by the end of the present century. 

In some instances, these figures are being massaged to present a rosier picture than actually pertains. Ireland’s current fertility rate, for example, is officially at 1.7, but this is a composite figure, concealing the rather different patterns prevailing within the indigenous population compared to those among recent arrivals from countries where the birth rate is many multiples of Ireland’s. Whereas in 1970, the Irish fertility rate was 3.8, it is now less than one-third of that figure, having collapsed to a little above 1.1 — half the replacement rate.

Abortion, which is promoted by the same forces and interests that are pushing mass migration, is a key element of the suicide of Europe. The countries that have legalised abortion are the ones leading the plunge into the demographic abyss. 

Worst of all is that Europeans are not even permitted to openly discuss what is happening to them. 

Murray again: ‘Europe today has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument. Those in power seem persuaded that it would not matter if the people and culture of Europe were lost to the world. Some have clearly decided (as Bertolt Brecht wrote in his 1953 poem ‘The Solution’) to dissolve the people and elect another . . .’

He identifies two main causes for Europe’s drastic situation. One is mass migration into Europe, which he says turned Europe from ‘a home for the European peoples’ to ‘a home for the entire world’.  The lack of integration and assimilation made innumerable places in Europe into places that were not European in the least. The normalisation of mass immigration and the delusional expectation of integration blinded us to the truth about what has been done. We Europeans know, says Murray, that we cannot become Indian or Chinese, yet we are expected to believe that anyone in the world can move to Europe and become European. 

The second factor he identifies was the destruction by Europeans of their own beliefs, traditions and legitimacy.  Europe had forgotten that everything you love ‘even the greatest and most cultured civilisations in history, can be swept away by people who are unworthy of them.’ The myth of progress is used, he says, to blinker the people of Europe to the calamity unfolding in their midst. Europe is weighed down with guilt about its past. And there is also, he says, a problem in Europe of ‘existential tiredness and a feeling that perhaps for Europe the story has run out and a new story must be allowed to begin.’

We are, as a result, in the process of replacing an ancient tradition based on philosophy, ethics and the rule of law, with a shallow anti-culture based on ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ — trite concepts with no effective meaning other than the imposition of a bar on speaking one’s mind. Had it been possible to discuss what was unfolding, Murray writes, some solution might have been reached. ‘Yet, even in 2015, at the height of the migration crisis, it was speech and thought that was constricted.’

The loss of ‘unifying stories’, he says, ‘about our past and ideas about what to do with our present or future’, would be a serious conundrum at any time. During a time of momentous societal change and upheaval, it is likely to prove fatal. ‘The world is coming into Europe at a time when Europe has lost sight of what it is. And while the movement of millions of people from other cultures into a strong and assertive culture might have worked, the movement of millions of people into a guilty, jaded and dying culture cannot.’ 

Such a hypothesis might seem to invite a degree of compassion for Europeans themselves — on account of their psychological inability to continue ‘taking care of business’ as they once did. This might, in turn, be seen as some kind of admixture of residual Christian empathy (for the newcomers) and the guilt (concerning Europe’s imperial past) that might seem to underpin it.

But there is a less flattering interpretation: that the dominant note in this dissonant fugue of self-justification is actually the unspoken selfishness of the present generation of ‘adult’ Europeans, who are so indifferent to the fates of the children they have permitted to be born in the decades since the 1960s — that they are prepared to sell their birthright of homeland to dramatise their virtue or ameliorate their guilt. Thus, the elaborate shows of middle-class approval that have greeted the multiple recent invasions of Europe under the subvention of invisible manipulators have concealed a darker fact: that the ageing European natives do not lose sleep about what happens to those who come after them; possessing no real beliefs, they have no heed of the future or the consequences of their actions in the present; and they do not care if Europe turns into a satellite of an Africa dying for different reasons, once they are gone.  

About the Author

John Waters was a journalist, magazine editor and columnist specialising in raising unpopular issues of public importance.  He left The Irish Times after 24 years in 2014 and drew the blinds fully on Irish journalism a year later.

Since then, his articles have appeared in publications such as First Thingsfrontpagemag.comThe Spectator, and The Spectator USA. He has published ten books, the latest, Give Us Back the Bad Roads (2018), being a reflection on the cultural disintegration of Ireland since 1990, in the form of a letter to his late father. 

The above is an extract from his article ‘Europe’s death rattle, Part II’.  You can read Part I HERE.  Follow John Waters’ work by subscribing to his Substack HERE.

https://expose-news.com/2022/07/05/europes-collective-deathwish/

Reprinted from Who Is Robert Malone - Letter to the U.K. Gov from 76 Doctors by Dr. Robert Malone

Below is a letter signed by 76 doctors in the UK, to the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and other U.K. Government officials. This letter lays out comprehensive reasons why the recent U.S. FDA decision authorizing COVID vaccinations in infants and young children must not happen in the UK. The letter is well-sourced and accurate. Let us hope that main-stream media here in the USA and in the UK report on this letter in an unbiased fashion.

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

(the letter continues)

We are writing to you urgently concerning the announcement that the FDA has granted an Emergency Use Authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in preschool children.

We would urge you to consider very carefully the move to vaccinate ever younger children against SARS-CoV-2, despite the gradual but significant reducing virulence of successive variants, the increasing evidence of rapidly waning vaccine efficacy, the increasing concerns over long-term vaccine harms, and the knowledge that the vast majority of this young age group have already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 repeatedly and have demonstrably effective immunity. Thus, the balance of benefit and risk which supported the rollout of mRNA vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable in 2021 is totally inappropriate for small children in 2022. 

We also strongly challenge the addition of COVID-19 vaccination into the routine child immunization program despite no demonstrated clinical need, known and unknown risks (see below) and the fact that these vaccines still have only conditional marketing authorization.

It is noteworthy that the Pfizer documentation presented to the FDA has huge gaps in the evidence provided: 

  • The protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.  

  • There was no statistically significant difference between the placebo and vaccinated groups in either the 6–23-month age group or the 2-4-year-olds, even after the third dose. Astonishingly, the results were based on just three participants in the younger age group (one vaccinated and two placebo) and just seven participants in the older 2–4-year-olds (two vaccinated and five placebo). Indeed, for the younger age group the confidence intervals ranged from minus-367% to plus-99%. The manufacturer stated that the numbers were too low to draw any confident conclusions. Moreover, these limited numbers come only from children infected more than seven days after the third dose.

  • Over the whole time period from the first dose onwards (see page 39 Tables 19 and 20), there were a total of 225 infected children in the vaccinated arm and 150 in the placebo arm, giving a calculated vaccine efficacy of only 25% (14% for the 6-23 months, and 33% for 2-4s).  

  • The additional immunogenicity studies against Omicron, requested by the FDA, only involved a total of 66 children tested one month after the third dose (see page 35).   

It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children. When it comes to safety, the data are even thinner: only 1,057 children, some already unblinded, were followed for just two months. It is noteworthy that Sweden and Norway are not recommending the vaccine for 5-11s and Holland is not recommending it for children who have already had COVID-19. The director of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority stated recently that with what is now known, the decision to vaccinate children was a mistake.

We summarize below the overwhelming arguments against this vaccination.

A.  Extremely low risk from COVID-19 to young children

  • In the whole of 2020 and 2021, not a single child aged 1-9 died where COVID-19 was the sole diagnosis on the death certificate, according to ONS data.

  • A detailed study in England from March 1st 2020 to March 1st 2021 found only six children under 18 years died with no co-morbidities. There were no deaths aged 1-4 years.

  • Children clear the virus more easily than adults.

  • Children mount effective, robust, and sustained immune responses.

  • Since the arrival of the Omicron variant, infections have been generally much milder. That is also true for unvaccinated under-5s.

  • By June 2022 it is now estimated that 89% of 1-4-year-olds had already had SARS-CoV-2 infection.

  • Recent data from Israel show excellent long-lasting immunity following infection in children, especially in 5-11s.

B.  Poor vaccine efficacy 

  • In adults, it has become apparent that vaccine efficacy wanes steadily over time, necessitating boosters at regular intervals. Specifically, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly against the latest Omicron variants. 

  • In children, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly in 5-11s than in 12-17s, possibly related to the lower dose used in the pediatric formulation. One study from New York showed efficacy against Omicron falling to only 12% by 4-5 weeks and to negative values by 5-6 weeks post second dose.

  • In the Pfizer 0-4s trial, the efficacy after two doses fell to negative values, necessitating a change to the trial protocol. After a third dose there was a suggestion of efficacy from 7-30 days but there is no data beyond 30 days to see how quickly this will wane. 

C. Potential harms of COVID-19 vaccines for children

  • There has been great concern about myocarditis in adolescents and young adults, especially in males after the second dose, estimated at one per 2,600 in active post-marketing surveillance in Hong Kong. The emerging evidence of persistent cardiac abnormalities in adolescents with post-mRNA vaccine myopericarditis, as demonstrated by cardiac MRI at 3-8 months follow up, suggests this is far from ‘mild and short-lived’. The potential for longer term effects requires further study and calls for the strictest application of the precautionary principle in respect of the youngest and most vulnerable children.

  • Although post-vaccination myocarditis appears to be less common in 5-11-year-olds than older children, it is, nonetheless, increased over baseline.

  • In the Pfizer study, 50% of vaccinated children had systemic adverse events, including irritability and fever. Diagnosis of myocarditis is much more difficult in younger children. No troponin levels or ECG studies were documented. Even a vaccinated child in the trial, hospitalized with fever, calf pain and a raised CPK, had no report of D-dimers, anti-platelet antibodies or troponin levels.

  • In Pfizer’s 5-11s post-authorization conditions, it is required to conduct studies looking for myocarditis and is not due to report results until 2027.

  • Of equal concern are, as yet unknown, negative effects on the immune system. In the 0-4s trial, only seven children were described as having “severe” COVID-19 – six vaccinated and one given placebo. Similarly, for the 12 children with recurrent episodes of infection, 10 were vaccinated against only two who received placebo. These are all tiny figures and much too small to rule out any adverse impact such as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) and other impacts on the immune system.

  • Also unanswered is the question of Original Antigenic Sin. It is of note that in a large Israeli study, those infected after vaccination had poorer cover than those vaccinated after infection. In the Moderna trial, N-antibodies were seen in only 40% of those infected after vaccination, compared with 93% of those infected after placebo.

  • There is evidence of vaccine-induced disruption of both innate and adaptive immune responses. The possibility of developing an impaired immune function would be disastrous for children, who have the most competent innate immunity, which by now has been effectively trained by the circulating virus.

  • Totally unknown is whether there will be any adverse effect on T-cell function leading to an increase in cancers.

  • Also, in terms of reproductive function, limited animal bio-distribution studies showed lipid nanoparticles concentrate in ovaries and testes. Adult sperm donors have showed a reduction in sperm counts particularly of motile sperm, falling by three months post-vaccination and remaining depressed at four to five months.

  • Even for adults, concerns are rising that serious adverse events are in excess of hospitalizations from COVID-19.

D. Informed consent

  • For 5-11s, the JCVI, in recommending a “non-urgent offer” of vaccination, specifically noted the importance of fully informed consent with no coercion.

  • With the low uptake in this age group, the presence of ‘therapy dogs’, advertisements including superhero images and information about child vaccination protecting friends and family all clearly run contrary to the concept of consent, fully informed and freely given.

  • The complete omission of information explaining to the public the different and novel technology used in COVID-19 vaccines compared to standard vaccines, and the failure to inform of the lack of any long-term safety data, borders on misinformation.

E. Effect on public confidence 

  • Vaccines against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles, need to be prioritized. Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine on to young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.

  • The poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer risks bringing the pharmaceutical industry into disrepute and the regulators if this product is authorized.

In summary, young healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID-19, especially since the arrival of the Omicron variant. Most have been repeatedly exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus, yet have remained well, or have had short, mild illness. As detailed above, the vaccines are of brief efficacy, have known short- to medium-term risks and unknown long-term safety. Data for clinically useful efficacy in small children are scant or absent. In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.

For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses. Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.  

(Signed):

Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy (ICVI)
Professor Anthony Fryer, PhD, FRCPath, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry, Keele University
Professor David Livermore, BSc, PhD, Retired Professor of Medical Microbiology, UEA
Professor John Fairclough FRCS FFSEM retired Honorary Consultant Surgeon 
Lord Moonie,  MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, formerCconsultant in Public Health Medicine
Dr Abby Astle, MA(Cantab), MBBChir, GP Principal, GP Trainer, GP Examiner
Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner
Dr Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, Retired Pharmaceutical Physician
Dr David Bramble, MBChB, MRCPsych, MD, Consultant Psychiatrist
Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General practitioner
Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional medicine practitioner 
Michael Cockayne, MSc, PGDip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner
Julie Coffey, MBChB, General Practitioner 
John Collis, RN, Specialist Nurse Practitioner, retired
Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist
James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health
Dr Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist
Dr David Critchley, BSc, PhD in Pharmacology, 32 years’ experience in Pharmaceutical R&D
Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (hons), DipPharmMedDr Elizabeth Evans, MA (Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired Doctor
Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD, retired Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals and retired Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery SmithKline Beecham
Dr Simon Fox, BSc, BMBCh, FRCP, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and Internal Medicine
Dr Ali Haggett, Mental health community work, 3rd sector, former lecturer in the history of medicine
David Halpin, MB BS FRCS, Orthopaedic and trauma surgeon (retired)     
Dr Renée Hoenderkampf, General Practitioner
Dr Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, retired
Dr Steve James, Consultant Intensive Care
Dr Keith Johnson, BA, DPhil (Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing
Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician
Dr Tanya Klymenko, PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences
Dr Charles Lane, MA, DPhil, Molecular Biologist
Dr Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Molecular Biologist
Dr Felicity Lillingstone, IMD DHS PhD ANP, Doctor, Urgent Care, Research Fellow 
Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc (Hons), MSc, CEO/Systematic Review Director, Epidemica Ltd.
Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, Consultant physician, retired
Ahmad K Malik FRCS (Tr & Orth) Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Kulvinder Singh Manik, MBBS, General Practitioner
Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr S McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP (Edinburgh). NHS Emergency Medicine & Geriatrics
Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Tr&Orth), FFSEM(UK), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, PhD, LFHom, BSEM, Nutritional, Environmental and Integrated Medicine
Dr Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Emergency Medicine Physician
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH. Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Dr David Morris, MBChB, MRCP(UK), General Practitioner
Margaret Moss, MA (Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire
Dr Alice Murkies, MD FRACGP MBBS, General Practitioner
Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, retired GP and Naturopathic Physician
Dr Rachel Nicholl, PhD, Medical researcher
Dr Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause specialist 
Rev Dr William J U Philip MB ChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly physician specialising in cardiology
Dr Angharad Powell, MBChB, BSc (hons), DFRSH, DCP (Ireland), DRCOG, DipOccMed, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Gerry Quinn, PhD. Postdoctoral researcher in microbiology and immunology
Dr Johanna Reilly, MBBS, General Practitioner
Jessica Righart, MSc, MIBMS, Senior Critical Care Scientist
Mr Angus Robertson, BSc, MB ChB, FRCSEd (Tr & Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Jessica Robinson, BSc(Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom, Psychiatrist and Integrative Medicine Doctor
Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), Retired General Practitioner
Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal surgeon
Dr Roland Salmon, MB BS, MRCGP, FFPH, Former Director, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales
Sorrel Scott, Grad Dip Phys, Specialist Physiotherapist in Neurology, 30 years in NHS
Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc (hons), MBChB (hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner
Dr Gary Sidley, retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist
Dr Annabel Smart, MBBS, retired General Practitioner
Natalie Stephenson, BSc (Hons) Paediatric Audiologist
Dr Zenobia Storah,MA (Oxon), Dip Psych, DClinPsy, Senior Clinical Psychologist (Child and Adolescent)
Dr Julian Tompkinson, MBChB MRCGP, General Practitioner GP trainer PCME
Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DCH, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, retired doctor
Dr Stephen Ting, MB CHB, MRCP, PhD, Consultant Physician
Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, Clinical Scientist
Dr Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology
Dr Helen Westwood MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner
Mr Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant Vascular Surgeon
Dr Damian Wilde, PhD, (Chartered) Specialist Clinical Psychologist
Dr Ruth Wilde, MB BCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-uk-gov-from-76-doctors