For years, I’ve used the term crony capitalist to describe businesspeople who choose to earn profits by lobbying for subsidies and government regulations suppressing competition. My critics pointed out that crony capitalists are not capitalists.
My critics are right, and the distinction matters. Crony capitalism has no resemblance to real capitalism.
Conflating the two words gives capitalism a bad name. No wonder “70% of millennials say they’d vote for a socialist.”
“Cronyism is a political and economic system in which the government is controlled by corporations and intervenes in the market using its coercive power on their behalf. Crony businesspeople thrive not because they serve their stakeholders but because they exploit the power of the state, circumventing the discipline of the free market.”
Crony businesspeople partner with politicians. “While capitalism channels personal ambition into the service of others, cronyism channels personal greed into abuse.” Kofman explains how:
“Crony politicians crush competition by handing out special permits, government grants, and tax breaks to those whom they favor, and by imposing tariffs and restrictions on their competitors and consumers. Crony corporations take inordinate risks fearlessly, knowing that if they win, their earnings will be privatized, but if they lose, their losses will be covered through bailouts and special aid packages.”
Cronies have no skin in the game; their losses are covered. Nasim Taleb points out “The largest fragilizer of society is a lack of skin in the game.” Cronies pursue coercive policies that make markets more fragile, less able to learn from trial and error, and less able to cope with unexpected events. Taleb adds, “I want the entrepreneur to be respected, not the CEO of a company who has all the upsides and none of the downsides.”
The result of cronyism, Kofman explains, is the destruction of economic value: “Crony businesses make money not by profiting in the economic market through their value-adding services, but by profiteering in the political market through value-destroying takings.”
Cronies operate from a win-lose mindset; entrepreneurs have a win-win mindset. When cronies win, someone else must lose. When an entrepreneur gains, so can others.
Cronies seek to increase their wealth at the expense of others; entrepreneurs seek to increase their wealth by serving others.
Android competes with iOS. Both platforms have led to the creation of thousands of successful app businesses. Without those synergistic businesses, the value of Android and iOS plummets.
Perhaps your home has an Instant Pot on the kitchen counter. In 2008 Dr. Robert Wang, a Chinese immigrant to Canada with a Ph.D. in Computer Science, followed a rule of all successful entrepreneurs: Give customers what they want, not what you have.
Customers wanted a new gadget that could help them make nutritious home-cooked meals in much less time and with a minimal learning curve. Yes, Dr. Wang created wealth for himself; but he did so by improving others’ lives, including a small economy of cookbook authors showing how to use the Instant Pot for every cuisine. Win-win.
It is cronies who seek via coercion to give the consumer what their company has and not what the consumer wants. Ethanol-laced gasoline is a good example. Government mandates its use; consumers have no choice but to buy it. Ethanol hurts both consumers and the environment. Crony ethanol producers win; everyone else loses.
Cronyism is rampant in the vaccine market. Government funds development, fuels demand, and then provides legal immunity protecting vaccine producers from injury lawsuits.
Business and airline groups are asking the U.S. government to develop vaccine immunity passports. If tribal medical identities fracture America, cronies will be to blame for codifying our worst instincts.
Why do I write worst instincts? Some argue that government needs to protect us against the unvaccinated. Isn’t that a good instinct? Let’s carry out the logic of the protection argument. Of course, this question is absurd, but should the obese be banned from flying? The obese are more likely to develop a severe case of Covid-19, and Covid-19 vaccines offer less protection to the obese. Sugar consumption is among the factors that suppress the immunological system, making sugar eaters more likely to be carriers of disease. Should government grant sugar-free consumption passports?
Without government codifying a medical caste system, airlines and other businesses that voluntarily implement vaccine immunity passports may lose more business than they gain. In the January 2021 forecast issue of The Socionomist, I wrote this:
“I’ll be observing if an American caste system develops around immunity passports and vaccination status. In the Hindu caste system, your societal rank depends upon your perceived purity. Contact between a lower caste and higher caste never purifies the lower caste; it can only contaminate the higher caste. Under a medical caste system, will the proclaimed “pure” demand no contact from those who make different medical choices? If so, businesses such as airlines, supermarkets, and restaurants, and employers will face tough decisions.”
Given a segment of the public’s insatiable demand for safety, will lockdowns morph into a ubiquitous request for “vaccine papers please”?
Cronies are Not Lovely
Lovely is the word Adam Smith used in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments to describe individuals who are “worthy of being loved” because of their character. We create our civilization by how we live our lives.
Since profiteering cronies employ coercion, they do not live moral lives. Kofman is blunt, “Crony businesspeople…are rapacious, predatory, and immoral.” Immoral cronies deform markets. To Kofman, “Crony businesspeople are not capitalists; they are Mafiosi.” He contrasts cronies from capitalists:
“Capitalism doesn’t operate this way. In free markets under the rule of law, businesses don’t profit by being callous, manipulative, and greedy—although behaving that way may give them short-term advantages. Businesses really profit over the long run by being empathetic (understanding their customers, employees, and other stakeholders), compassionate (serving them), and equitable (being fair to them).”
Outside the political markets of cronyism, we are naturally lovely to each other. The economic marketplace brings out the best of us, our loveliness. We are more successful both personally and professionally when we turn, as Steven Pinker puts it, to the “better angels of our nature” which orient us towards cooperation.
In the Wealth of Nations, Smith famously instructs, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
Smith is not pointing to selfishness as the underpinning of capitalism. Kofman explains, “Capitalism is the alchemical crucible in which humanity transforms its base instincts into gold:”
“Capitalism works even when people are unconscious and driven by selfish desires. Even if an entrepreneur is no moral hero, capitalism will turn him or her into a servant of society. Property rights and free exchange distill self-interest into service, making it necessary to enter the marketplace with an intention to help.”
By employing coercion, greed runs unchecked. Cronies deform economic markets by disabling the safety mechanism that disciplines markets. Kofman explains:
“The safety mechanism of capitalism, the one that disciplines the potentially rapacious ambition of a company or an individual, is the possibility of opting in or out of any transaction—guaranteed by property rights and free exchange. Once legal coercion blocks this safety switch, the whole system derails. If people are coerced (illegally, as in crime, or legally, as in politics) into participating in transactions that they would prefer to avoid, “natural selection” in the ecosystem breaks down.”
Real damage is done when opting out is not an option. How do we repair the damage inflicted by cronyism?
In his book, The Essential Adam Smith, professor James Otteson asks us to adjust our mindset: “We have to treat each other with respect, and not presume that either of us is more important or more worthy or more deserving than the other.”
Every person, Smith pointed out, “has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren.” “The best way” to benefit from the assistance of others, Otteson writes, “is by offering to do something for the other person that that other person values.”
In the spirit of Adam Smith, Otteson argues that society functions best when “we meet one another as peers, as moral equals, and to make offers to one another that either of us is free to decline.” This “opt-out option,” Otteson writes, “disciplines us from any notion we might otherwise have had about merely trying to steal from or defraud one another. And because each of us desires mutual sympathy of sentiments, we desire to conduct ourselves in ways that others will approve of.”
Otteson illustrates the Smithian win-win moral code that would be crony kryptonite:
“So when we seek our meat from butchers, our ale from brewers, and our bread from bakers, we make them offers that recognize that they are our equals, that they have interests and obligations of their own, and that our interests and obligations do not trump theirs. Our desire for their meat, ale, and bread—which after all they had to make with their own labor and time and resources—does not trump their right to decide on their own what to do. In these circumstances, then, how are we going to get their meat, ale, or bread? We will have to treat them the way they want to be treated, and we will have to offer them something they might want; for their part, they will do, will have to do, the same for us.”
Kofman puts it this way: “Capitalism creates a force field that channels personal ambition toward support for others, and it organizes society for cooperation through the division of labor, and through innovation toward the satisfaction of the needs of its members.”
Win-win outcomes arise from the capitalist mindset that others are peers whose freedom to opt-in or opt-out of any transaction we respect. Such a mindset orients us towards service and away from coercion. The crony mindset rationalizes exploiting the power of the state to profit by coercion and is anything but lovely.
The WEF’s Great Reset, aka Technocracy and which is enthusiastically backed by global banks and corporations, intends to turn the citizens of the world into digital assets for the sake of management, control and profit. Instead of being a human, you will be a blip on the blockchain which will be used to micromanage you.
This is not speculation. It is plainly stated across globalist documents all around the world and in many languages. Once a global ID system is in place, it will be tied to every move and purchase you make, along with every psychographic and physical aspect of your life – cradle to cradle. Why cradle to cradle? Because DNA and genetic engineering will play a central role. ⁃ TN Editor
Few are aware of it but the digitalization of the human race is advancing at break-neck speed.
Don’t look now but the world is racing down a path that has been interlaid with landmines of control and surveillance and yet almost no Western politician of any party seems concerned enough to even talk about the impact this will have on personal privacy. If you’re curious about what the near future holds, listen to technocrats like Bill Gates.
He said this was the only way to keep up with who has the virus and who has been vaccinated. Note that no vaccine was known to be in the pipeline in March 2020, but Gates talked about the vaccine as if it was just around the corner. He knew.
In a March 18, 2020 “Ask Me Anything” online forum sponsored by Reddit, Gates was asked what changes needed to be made to the way businesses operate to ensure public health without ruining the economy.
Gates’ answer to the problem was digital certificates, which clearly drives once-free Western societies into a “show your papers” scenario that pre-COVID would have been considered a Nazi-like taboo [see screenshot below]:
Gates was also known at the time to be investing in the ID2020 initiative, which seeks to connect people’s vaccine history to their purchasing actions.
Instead of taking Gates seriously back in March 2020, the vast majority of folks blew off his comments as the fantasy of the world’s biggest geek.
I was one of the first last year to suggest that Gates ought to be taken seriously and that his ultimate plan was to “update” every person’s genetic code with the latest version of mRNA virus protection, similar to the way his Microsoft Windows operating system automatically updates your computer.
Gates is not just spewing techno fairy tales. He is a big-time mouthpiece for the techno-medical wing of the New World Order [there are also economic, social and religious wings to the NWO]. I believe Gates gets many of his ideas from less widely known individuals associated with the World Economic Forum [see WEF graphic on digital identity], the same folks pushing for the so-called global Great Reset. Gates also likes to work in partnership with the Rockefeller family foundations.
It was David Rockefeller who in 1973 co-founded with Zbigniew Brzezinski the Trilateral Commission, an elitist technocratic organization that promised to promote the creation of a “new international economic order.” Some of the most prominent thought leaders driving the rapid changes in the global economy today are members of the Trilateral Commission, whose current membership roll includes representatives from central banks in Europe, the Americas and Asia.
Multinational corporations, in cooperation with Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Government and globalists connected to the United Nations-World Economic Forum, are using the COVID crisis to transform the way money, goods and services trade hands.
But it doesn’t stop there.
They are using the “opportunity,” presented by the pandemic, says WEF director Klaus Schwab, to transform health care, banking, industrial production, energy production and consumption systems, global land-use, even the way we socialize together as human beings.
Schwab has commented that no industry will be exempt from the Great Reset. And the United Nations states in its Agenda 2030 that no person will be “left behind” by this coming global system. Since no vote was held and none of us were asked if we wanted to sign up for the Great Reset/Agenda 2030, this begs the question: What will be done with dissidents who refuse to go along with this vision for the world?
The answer lies hidden in the coming cashless system.
These elites have wanted to get rid of cash for a long time. This has been a priority item on their to-do list for more than 60 years. Cash is simply too difficult to track [despite various attempts] and the technocratic elites are obsessed with tracking, measuring and monitoring everything in real time.
They want to monetize, put a value on, every human life. To achieve this, they need to be able to track with pinpoint accuracy everyone’s spending and consumption habits.
They now believe they have found the solution: Replacing cash with a new digital currency based on blockchain technology.
What will this new digital currency be backed up by?
There are several theories, none of which are likely to involve precious metals such as gold or silver.
Some believe the new world currency will be backed by the world’s major land masses and the natural resources beneath that land. This could explain why the Chinese and Bill Gates have been going on a land-buying binge which includes farmland in the United States.
Another theory is that this new global currency will be backed up by human capital, meaning the global workforce. This would explain why they need to attribute a monetary value to every human being, based on their age, productivity and other contributions to society minus their carbon footprint. Basically, you become a cog in their globalist wheel, a digital asset of the central banks Of course the important people will be allowed to use up more carbon and fly around the world on jets, as John Kerry has already informed us, while the masses are relegated to bicycles and public transportation.
With the onset of COVID, whether it was accidentally or purposely released by the Chinese Communist Party, the power elites saw their opportunity and seized it. Cash as we know it is being phased out, with more than 60 countries testing new cashless digital currencies.
China is taking the lead in this process and wants to become the world’s first cashless nation. The Chinese Communist Party has rolled out a new digital Yuan, and is testing it in several major cities within China. Unlike bitcoin, which retains the owner’s anonymity and works independent of any governing authority, the digital Yuan will be the world’s first digital money issued by a central bank.
As CBN News reports, the new digital Chinese Yuan will be an international currency, offering a frightening specter of control over Chinese citizens and a “model” for other countries.
David Curry of Open Doors told CBN, “China is building what I think is a blueprint, a road map of persecution for other regimes around the world and they’re doing it with surveillance.”
I believe that’s at least partly why the dollar is being deliberately devalued by the U.S. government, with runaway spending soon to lead to hyper-inflation as the national debt approaches an astonishing $30 trillion. At some point, individuals may be offered a deal in which their share of the debt, along with perhaps their personal debt, gets eliminated in return for joining the new digital system.
It’s no accident that the world’s most repressive regime is driving the world toward a cashless society.
Think of the possibilities.
You step out of line with the dictates of the state, and the central bank immediately shuts down your access to the digital money necessary to put food on your table. You refuse to vaccinate, and they shut down your account. You violate Big Tech’s community standards in your social media accounts, and they shut down your account [this is already happening in China where Facebook works with the one-party state to punish dissidents].
Yes, it’s possible for the FBI to freeze your bank account here in America under the current cash-based system, and that is a tactic they are increasingly using against Trump supporters, but you can always fall back on cash in the current economic system.
Under the new system, you will have no such back up. Your entire livelihood will be left to the whim of big government working with Big Tech and Big Pharma.
I predict that over a period of three to five years, the transition to this new cashless system will be complete. It will start off as voluntary, with various incentives offered to join the system. Over time, those incentives will be replaced with punishments, until those using cash are totally locked out of the system, unable to buy or sell or work a job.
You will not be allowed to board planes, enter hotels, stadiums, concert halls and other large venue events, even retail stores, without showing your proof of vaccination, which will be a card or app on your phone tied into the new digital currency at your bank.
Gradually, they will add more information to the card/app, to the point where it will include all your vital information, what drugs you take, your criminal background, if you have one, your driving record, and your social score as provided by Big Tech detailing how many times you’ve run afoul of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube’s “community standards.” This humongous data bank will be centrally controlled by a commission of some sort, appointed by the government and tagged with an Orwellian name, something like The Commission on Data Security and Privacy.
This beast system will offer the latest in convenience and security using blockchain technology.
I can hear the advertisements now: Are you tired of all the COVID rules and restrictions? Just sign up to get “the pass” and you can go back to enjoying evenings at the pub, ballgames on sunny Saturday afternoons, concerts, cruises, church services, all the benefits of your previous “normal” life!
Unlike the blockchain used for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, this blockchain will be centrally controlled and anything but private.
Sadly, very few are yet aware of any of this, and if you told them about it, you would be accused of watching too many sci-fi movies.
The truth is, all of this is quietly progressing under the radar of media attention and public scrutiny. By the time it is rolled out for widespread “voluntary” enrollment, it will be too late to turn back the clock.
This was the plan all along, to use COVID to scare the masses into a whole new type of society, where every individual’s personally identifiable information is tied in with a new digital currency. Read full story here…
Pure and simple, this is unvarnished, raw Transhumanism. Moderna CEO says mRNA shots are “rewriting the Genetic Code.” He calls it “information therapy”, and says “We are actually hacking the software of life.” This should be a red alert for every rational American.
Transhumanism is a twisted philosophy that believes in the use of high technology to transform humans into immortal beings. That is, escaping death and living forever. Furthermore, they seek to use genetic engineering to create a new master race of sorts, that will shed all of the “unseemly” characteristics of humans. In just a few short years, Transhumanism has smothered the world against its will and without its consent. Billions of people will be injected with mRNA gene therapy concoctions that will permanently change a persons genetic makeup. ⁃ TN Editor
Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., explained in a 2017 TED talk how the company’s mRNA vaccine was designed to work.
Over the last 30 years, he said, “we’ve been living this phenomenal digital scientific revolution, and I’m here today to tell you, that we are actually hacking the software of life, and that it’s changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease.”
He went on to explain [see video below] that the human body is made up of organs and organs are made up of cells.
“In every cell there’s this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will do. So we think about it as an operating system.
“So if you could change that, if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out, that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer.”
I reported on Feb. 4 that Moderna describes its new vaccine as “a computer operating system” but I was not aware at that time that Zaks had spoken three years ago about this, totally debunking the establishment media’s lie that mRNA vaccines don’t alter your genetic code.
He could not be more clear when he said “We are actually hacking the software of life.”
Zaks stressed that in 2017 his company was working on a vaccine that would not act like any previous vaccine ever created.
“Imagine if instead of giving [the patient] the protein of a virus, we gave them the instructions on how to make the protein, how the body can make its own vaccine,” he said.
Zaks said it took decades to sequence the human genome, which was accomplished in 2003, “And now we can do it in a week.”
He proceeded to reveal, in 2017, his company’s plans to make individual cancer vaccines, tailored to the needs of individual cancer patients, “because every cancer is different.”
Interestingly, one of the most potentially catastrophic side effects of the mRNA vaccine is its interaction with cancer cells. According to a study at New York City-based Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the mRNA has a tendency to inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins, meaning it can promote the growth of cancer cells.
Both the Moderna and Pfizer injections are experimental mRNA vaccines. The FDA has only granted these injections Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] and they will remain in trials through 2023, yet the government, media and corporations are all promoting them as though they are guaranteed safe.
This systemic deception will, in my opinion, end up being judged in the rear-view mirror of history as one of the most reckless acts of medical treachery ever committed against the human race.
If this so-called vaccine does cause more people to get cancer, think of the possibilities from a purely business point of view.
Based on the predictions of Dr. Zaks, who oversaw the creation of the vaccine now being given to millions of people worldwide, the same Big Pharma companies that could potentially give people cancer with one vaccine could step forward later with another vaccine offering the cure for cancer. If you are the CEO of a mega pharmaceutical who answers to profit-driven Wall Street shareholders, that’s a brilliant strategy!
But is it ethical from a medical point of view? That’s a question nobody is asking.
As I listen to Dr. Zaks lay out the achievements of his company in creating the mRNA vaccine, I cannot help but think of how incredibly arrogant it sounds. That scientists think they can rewrite the genetic code [his words not mine for all you out there who still don’t believe these mRNA vaccines change the genetic code just because some ‘fact checker’ says they don’t], believing they can improve on a person’s God-given genetic makeup is entering dangerous territory. Who’s to say they won’t correct one problem and create something far worse?
Zaks wrapped up his 2017 speech with the following words.
“If you think about what it is we’re trying to do. We’ve taken information and our understanding of that information and how that information is transmitted in a cell, and we’ve taken our understanding of medicine and how to make drugs, and we’re fusing the two. We think of it as information therapy.”
Information therapy. Just like a computer software code.
These scientists truly believe that the human body is nothing more than a machine that can be hacked into and reordered according to some programmer’s instructions.
The same ground-breaking nature of this research that excites some, is what horrifies others.
A person’s genetic makeup is, as Dr. Zak said, “the software of life.”
If this is true, then who should be the ultimate authority over each human being’s genetic software code? If we truly live in a free society, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would want to have an energetic debate over how to answer that question? Shouldn’t it be the number-one issue being debated in Congress and the media? Instead, nobody is allowed to even ask these questions without being threatened, censored, rebuked, deplatformed. Members of the corporate media who dare broach the question get fired.
Contrary to what some scientists believe, we are not machines. We are human beings with bodies, souls and free wills. Anyone who tries to mandate the acceptance of an experimental gene-altering treatment is going against the international Nuremberg Codes, which require informed consent of any experimental treatment.
Dear readers: Please do not allow your employer, your government, your family, your friends or anyone else to intimidate you, or in any way try to persuade you, to accept this experimental treatment if you do not want it. You are your own health authority, period. If your employer threatens you with termination for rejecting this injection, please contact an attorney. The Rutherford Institute, headed up by civil rights attorney John Whitehead, is one good option. Others include Mat Staver’s Liberty Counsel.
Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger is a health scientist who does research, training and teaching in public health. Early on in her career, she began working with the World Health Organization, doing research which she says was “science for politics.”
As a writer, she published 10 books, and more than 170 scientific articles, policy papers, governmental, European Commission or UN reports.
As her career advanced, she started getting asked by politicians to organize events in public health. And then, in her capacity working with research ethics for WHO, she was asked by Geneva University to work on international health regulations in 1999.
She also worked with Georgetown University and others to be ready for a pandemic and to act quickly in the event one happened.
The Corona Investigative Committee
The Stiftung Corona Ausschuss (Corona Investigative Committee) in Germany is an independent platform for medical issues and ethics led by Dr Reiner Füllmich.
During the 41st session of the committee Dr. Astrid Stückelberger, a Swiss health scientist and researcher, blew the whistle on the inner workings of the WHO, where she worked for 20 years.
In a stunning confession, she says Switzerland is the center of corruption, and that GAVI and Bill Gates have total immunity from everything they do.
She talks about the “suspicious” activities of Bill Gates and the reservations she has about the actions of the WHO, GAVI and Gates.
Worse, when the pandemic began, she found that many breaches to international health regulations were occurring, and more.
The rules under which countries work with WHO virtually put WHO in charge of all rules and formal edicts and announcements — with Gates being right there as part of the executive board like an unofficial member state, making decisions that affect the entire world.
Watch video of the 41st session of the Corona Investigative Committee below:
The vaccine apparently compromised their immune systems. Although, such study was never performed before 2017, Bill Gates and the Vaccine Alliance GAVI and WHO pushed the vaccines on unsuspecting African babies.
Bill Gates funded and British led GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation) has created a system called “Performance based funding” whereby they financially punish nations based on their compliance or non-compliance to vaccination programs.
The BMGF funds international NGOs such as GAVI and PATH, which follow its policy of favouring the brands produced by US-EU companies such as Ely Lilly, Pfizer, GSK, Merck, Novartis and other such companies known for the high price of several of the medicines marketed by them.
Although exact figures are difficult to come by, a health expert claimed that the “intolerably high prices of critical drugs produced by Big Pharma have resulted in as many as 38 million premature deaths in underdeveloped countries during the past decade”, and that this figure would have been “much more in case civil society groups in Europe had not agitated successfully for entry to cheaper substitutes from India for several extortionately priced drugs for killer diseases produced by pharma conglomerates in the developed world”.
Another 68 were infected with COVID-19 despite the residence having no cases of the virus prior to receiving the vaccine
By Michael Haynes | Published February 26, 2021 LifeSiteNews
(Getty Images: Zinkevych)
SPAIN, February 26, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Nine elderly care home residents in Spain have died and a further 68 tested positive for COVID-19 10 days after they were given the first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccination. The news adds to the growing number of reports of people dying shortly after receiving the experimental vaccine.
El Salvador care home in Toledo in Spain, run by the “Messengers of Peace,” began administering the first doses of the Pfizer experimental vaccine on January 13. After six days, ten residents began to demonstrate symptoms of COVID-19, which swiftly resulted in a large number of residents and staff presenting with symptoms.
As of February 2, there had been a total of nine residents who had died following their injection, 5 more in hospital, and 33 members of staff who were found to have tested positive according to PCR tests. Out of the total of 78 residents, only one did not test positive for the virus.
In statements made to the Spanish radio COPE, Sergio Mella, the director general of the Messengers of Peace, said that during the so-called “first” and “second waves” of the virus, the home had been “completely free” from any instances of the infection, and that the virus had only appeared after the vaccine had been administered. He added that COVID hygiene protocols had been carefully adhered to within the care home.
Despite this peculiar correlation in events, Mella did not attribute anything to the injections, but called the deaths and infections a “coincidence.” He suggested that one of those administering the injections was asymptomatically carrying and spreading the virus, or that a member of staff had become infected with the virus around the same time as the vaccine had been given.
Mella called for a wide, national uptake of the experimental vaccine, and reports note that the home announced its intention to continue the vaccination routine, by administering the second dose of the vaccine on February 3. Further PCR tests were set to be performed two days later.
LifeSiteNews reached out to El Salvador home for comment, but no reply was received at time of publishing.
The news comes as yet another headline in the series of almost daily revelations of deaths and COVID infections, which occur after COVID vaccinations. Early in February 35 Catholic religious sisters in Kentucky received the first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine. The convent was completely locked down, with no ingress or egress, yet two days after the injections two nuns died and 26 tested positive for the virus.
Similar scenes were found in the Netherlands, when on January 30, 106 residents in a nursing home in Amersfoort received their first dose of a COVID injection. Like El Salvador, the home had not seen any cases of the virus since the infection emerged last year. However, within two weeks, over 70 residents had tested positive for the virus, and by February 22, twenty-two residents had died.
Another nursing home in Spain gave the first dose of Pfizer’s experimental vaccine in early January, and on January 12 staff reported an outbreak of the virus in the home. By the end of the month 46 residents had died, 28 out of 94 residents tested positive for the virus as well 12 staff.
Such cases are being reported all across the world, as deaths or infections of COVID-19, are occurring closely following COVID vaccinations. Writing for LifeSite, Celeste McGovern collated statistics of such events from around the world:
29 elderly people died in Norway shortly after receiving Pfizer’s vaccination.
13 deaths among 40 residents following vaccination at one nursing home in Germany were dismissed as “tragic coincidence.”
24 seniors at a nursing home in Syracuse, NY were reported to have died from COVID-19 as of January 9, 2021 despite having been vaccinated beginning December 22, 2020.
10 cases of COVID-19 were reported on January 28 among seniors who had received both doses of Pfizer’s vaccine at one care home in Stockholm Sweden. The residents were vaccinated on December 27 and again on January 19.
The COVID-19 death toll in the small British enclave of Gibraltar numbered 16 before it launched its Pfizer vaccination campaign on January 10, 2021 and then shot up to 53 deaths 10 days later and to 70 seven days after that. According to a Reuters report, the Gibraltar Health Authority declared there was “no evidence at all of any causal link” between 6 of the deaths that were investigated and the Pfizer’s vaccine, despite the individuals having tested negative for Covid-19 before vaccination, but positive “in the days immediately after.”
4,500 COVID-19 cases in Israel occurred in patients after they had received one dose of Pfizer’s vaccine and 375 of those vaccinated patients required hospitalization, Israeli news media reported on January 12.
Seven adults living in a care home in Saskatoon tested positive for coronavirus a week after residents were vaccinated at the Sherbrooke Community Centre, the CBC reported. There were no positive cases at the time of vaccination.
Seven residents at a Montreal long-term care facility tested positive for Covid-19 within 28 days of being vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine, prompting the province of Quebec to delay the second Pfizer dose.
Abercorn Care Home in Scotland, which began COVID-19 vaccinations on December 14, 2020 was home to an outbreak of the virus by January 10 and the National Health Service for the region refused to comment on whether vaccinated residents were ill. A care home staff group founder told the Scottish Daily Record : “We have had members of our group whose parents have had the vaccine and then two weeks later have tested positive for coronavirus.”
All of the residents at a home in Inverness, Scotland were vaccinated against COVID-19 early in January, but 17 became infected with the virus after the first dose.
Since the launch of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has recorded a total of 929 deaths from December 15, 2020, up to February 12, 2021, accounting for almost 6% of 15,923 adverse events on the system’s report.
Last week, during LifeSiteNews’s conference on COVID-19, a panel of doctors warned about the potential dangers of the experimental vaccines being used against COVID-19, mentioning harmful side-effects and even deaths.
Dr. Sheri Tenpenny explained that the antibody thus created in response to the COVID injection, “instead of protecting you if you get exposed to that pathogen, what it does is it makes you sicker, turns on all of the autoimmune cascades that have been created by this antibody and starts to attack your liver, your lungs and your kidneys.”
“That antibody can literally go inside of your lungs and kill your lung tissue.”
With such results, Tenpenny predicted an “autoimmune cascade,” which would cause widespread illness and fatality: “everyone is going to be equally damaged now.”
‘Given that Christians are the main group being targeted here, we need to be aware of what is really going on. We either commit to standing for Christ… or we renounce our faith altogether and admit it was all just a charade. We must choose now.’
Published Feb 12, 2021
Photo by Robert Stokoe from Pexels
VICTORIA, Australia, February 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Christian leaders are poised to resist Victoria’s controversial Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition bill, which threatens parents with up to 10 years in prison if they don’t affirm their kids’ sexual confusion and bans “carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer-based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism” to help someone overcome unwanted sexual attractions.
The Presbyterian Church of Australia has been the first to raise its voice following the bill’s passage through the Victorian Upper House, with its Moderator Rev. Dr. Peter Barnes urging his ministers to remain faithful to scripture on all matters of sexual morality, including homosexuality and transgenderism.
“The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill has now passed through both houses of the Victorian parliament. It forbids any attempt to change or suppress, or induce any person to change or suppress, his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. Prayer or counselling designed to change a person, even at that person’s request, is prohibited. In short, this means that sexual preference is protected by law, as is any person’s gender preference. Homosexual sex is not permitted to be called ‘sin’, and a male today can claim to be a female tomorrow,” Barnes said.
In his regular column for the Spectator Australia, fellow Presbyterian Minister Mark Powell doubled down on his superior’s statement.
“Significantly, the Victorian legislation makes it illegal for a parent to pray for their own child, even if they had requested them to do so. As such, Dr Barnes believes that it is right for Christians to defy the governing authority such as, ‘When King Darius exceeded his God-given authority, Daniel did ‘as he had done previously’ (Dan.6:10),” Powell wrote.
Powell also warned his readers of a push for similar legislation to be passed in his home state of New South Wales.
Author Bill Muehlenberg exhorted Christians to stand up for Christ “regardless of the dire consequences” on his popular blog, CultureWatch.
“Will this finally be the wakeup call we all need? Guess what folks? The time for playing games is now over. Given that Christians are the main group being targeted here, we need to be aware of what is really going on. We either commit to standing for Christ… or we renounce our faith altogether and admit it was all just a charade. We must choose now,” Muehlenberg wrote.
Prior to the bill’s passage, Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli urged Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, a baptized Catholic, to halt the bill in a joint statement with local faith leaders: “[T]he State has no interest in how I pray, who I pray to, and what I pray for. I warmly welcome any legislation to protect people from harm, but sadly this Bill does a whole lot of other things as well, and we have to be forthright and clear, as well as charitable.”
“We are praying for a constructive way forward to open up with all members of the Victorian Parliament,” they wrote.
Just weeks ago, the liberal media fell silent when members of their favored religion were caught selling black slaves to wealthy buyers at auction blocks. However, the case became far more sinister now that one man has come forward to reveal what the captors are “taking” from their black slaves.
After it was exposed that Muslims are selling black migrants in Libya, one man came forward to reveal that the captors are “taking” something far worse from their captives.(Photo Credit: Screenshot/ Youtube Screenshot/ Youtube)
Despite the left attempting to whitewash history, Muslims have driven the African slave trade since their own prophet Muhammad first bought and sold his own black African slaves over 1,400 years ago. It is this blatant concealment of this widespread inhumanity that caused shock and confusion when headlines reported that Libya is thriving on modern-day slavery.
Of course, the ransacking of Africa and subsequent forced conversion is nothing new but has plagued North African for well over a millennium thanks to Arab migration. Disturbingly, there is an even darker side to this ideological racism and supremacy that is only recently gaining media attention — and liberals are scrambling to distort it once again.
Just weeks after shock reports exposed Libya’s slave trade of African migrants, former Nigerian aviation minister Femi Fani-Kayode came forward to reveal that not only are Libyan Muslims abducting and auctioning off black migrants but they are harvesting their organs in grotesque rituals similar the mass mutilation that occurred at the peak of the Arab slave trade.
The Daily Mail reports that Fani-Kayode claims that around 75 percent of the slaves who’ve had their organs gruesomely removed are from his home country of Nigeria. Even more horrifying was his revelation that many of the victims who have their “bodies mutilated” are then “roasted like suya (shish kebabs)” by barbaric human traffickers.
“Roasted alive! This is what Libyans do to sub-Saharan Africans who are looking for a transit point to Europe. They sell them into slavery and either murder, mutilate, torture or work them to death,” he said.
Fani-Kayode further explained that soon after former U.S. President Barack Obama led the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya became a paradise for oppression, especially the human trafficking industry.
The mainstream media finally shed some light on the long-running Islamic slave trade earlier in November but focused solely on Libya, although slavery is rampant in dozens of Muslim-majority nations. Candid footage showed African men being auctioned off for manual labor, some for just a few hundred dollars.
According to the investigation, cell phone footage showed African men being sold, offered as one of the “big, strong boys for farm work.”
In the Libyan capital of Tripoli, an auction was witnessed for a man whose price rose from 500 dollars to $650. Some were sold for just $400, less than half the median weekly earnings of an American worker.
“Does anybody need a digger? This is a digger, a big, strong man, he’ll dig,” an auctioneer said. “What am I bid, what am I bid?”
Libyan human traffickers have seized the refugee crisis as an opportunity to take advantage of vulnerable African migrants looking for economic opportunities in Europe. As one of the main launch nations for crossing the Mediterranean to Italy, captors are easily able to trick their victims into paying a hefty fee for travel before abducting them and selling them to interested buyers.
While the mainstream media sheds a few passive tears for these unfortunate individuals, an estimated 14 million black slaves are still owned in the Middle East today with no outrage from the political left.
Although many Muslim countries have only very recently outlawed slavery, Arab Muslims easily find ways around releasing their human property by keeping them in debt and stealing their passports.
Evidence Muhammed was a white man
Of course, the concept of slavery in Islam is not a cultural misunderstanding or even a regional problem. In fact, it is only because Muhammad enslaved black Africans that the issue remains widespread in the Muslim world today.
Screenshot from the Book “The life of Muhammad” a translation of Ishaq’s sirat rasul allah
Until his death, Muhammad owned dozens of black slaves, often referring to his darkest captive, Nabtal, as the physical manifestation of Satan because of his dark complexion. Since he is the “Messenger of Allah,” his actions are to be emulated by his religious followers. Some of Muhammad’s interactions with his black slaves were recorded by his closest companions.
I went to (the house of the Prophet) and behold, Allah’s Messenger was staying in a Mashruba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah’s Messenger was at the top of its stairs. [Bukhari 7263]
Allah’s messenger was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). [Bukhari 6161]
The man from Banu Ad-Dubaib, who was called Rifa’ah bin Zaid, gave the Messenger of Allah a black slave who was called Mid’am. [an-Nasa’i 3827]
According to Islam trading of black slaves is equivalent to trading of animals.
Not only is slavery justified in the Quran, it was practiced by the only man charged by Allah with modelling the religion. Slavery is at its core and cannot be distanced from it or condemned by it, lest its followers also condemn their own prophet.
Any ideology that invokes blatant racism and oppression must be vehemently opposed by those who reject such inhumanity. Those who welcome it and demand its tolerance are directly demanding tolerance for its violent and oppressive principles.
A report German authorities tried to silence shows how Catholic nuns peddled orphaned boys to predatory priests and perverts for decades.
by Barbie Latza Nadeau Published Feb. 02, 2021
Flickr: Greg Westfall
(TheDailyBeast) – A jarring report outlining decades of rampant child sex abuse at the hands of greedy nuns and perverted priests in the Archdiocese of Cologne, Germany, paints a troubling picture of systematic abuse in the German church.
The report is the byproduct of a lawsuit alleging that orphaned boys living in the boarding houses of the Order of the Sisters of the Divine Redeemer were sold or loaned for weeks at a time to predatory priests and businessmen in a sick rape trade. The men involved in the lawsuit say as boys they were denied being adopted out or sent to foster families because selling them for rape lined the sisters’ coffers for their “convent of horrors.” Some of the boys were then groomed to be sex slaves to perverts, the report claims.
The alleged abuse went on for years, with one of the males claiming the nuns even frequently visited their college dorms after they had left the convent. He said the nuns often drugged him and delivered him to predators’ apartments. The Order of Sisters of the Divine Redeemer did not answer multiple requests for comment about the allegations.
The lawsuit, first reported by Deutsche Welle last year, is being led by 63-year-old victim Karl Haucke who, along with 15 other former orphans, demanded the Archdiocese of Cologne carry out a full investigation, which it concluded in January 2021. But the details of that investigative report were so horrific that Archbishop Reiner Maria Woelki refused to make it public, demanding that any journalists who see it sign confidentiality agreements. Eight German journalists walked out of a press conference in January after being denied access to the church’s investigation unless they agreed not to publish its contents.
Haucke says he was abused at least once a week between the ages of 11 and 14, often by more than one priest. “We had no words to describe what was being done to us. Nor did we know what it meant. And it did not stop at physical pain. We had a clear sense of humiliation and being used,” he told Deutsche Welle when the report was due to be released. He called the stifling of the report’s release in January “scandalous” and said that denying the journalists the right to publish the report was “like being abused all over again.”
Now, several lawyers with access to the 560-page report have shared segments with news outlets, including The Daily Beast. The report names various German businessmen and complicit clergy who “rented” the young boys from the nuns who ran a convent in Speyer, Germany between the 1960s and 1970s. Among the worst instances of abuse were gang bangs and orgies the young boys were forced to participate in before being returned to the convent where the nuns would then punish them for wrinkling their clothing or being covered in semen.
“Bishop Karl-Heinz Wiesmann, who now leads the archdiocese, said that the abuse report was ‘so gory’ it would be too shocking to make public.”
The report finds that 175 people, mostly boys between the ages of 8 and 14, were abused over two decades. But it failed to blame the nuns directly, instead saying “systematic” management errors and “leniency” for those who were accused by the children enabled the abuse to continue.
Haucke, who led the victims’ group of those who survived the nuns until he resigned over the censoring of the report, says Woelki told them in October 2020 that the report was not “legally watertight” and contained “inadmissible prejudices” against the Catholic church that were fed by scandals going on elsewhere. “The survivors were used again,” he said, referring to their cooperation in the report only to have it kept private. “People who have already been damaged in their lives by clergymen are being damaged again to protect the institution.”
The lawsuit also spawned a survey within religious orders that found that 1,412 people who lived in or frequented convents, parishes, and monasteries were abused as children, teenagers, and wards by at least 654 monks, nuns, and other members of the orders. Around 80 percent of the victims surveyed were male and 20 percent female. The survey also found that 80 percent of the abusers are now dead, and 37 had left the priesthood or religious order.
The Archdiocese of Cologne told The Daily Beast in a statement that the reason the report was not published was that it failed to fully explain the methodology of the research, but Bishop Karl-Heinz Wiesmann, who now leads the archdiocese, said that the abuse report was “so gory” it would be too shocking to make public. Wiesemann told the Catholic News Agency KNA that after reading it he had to take a month’s sabbatical to recover. “I too have limited energy for the burdens I have to carry,” he said.
The main abusers in the report are now dead and many of the victims have settled with the church for financial compensation, which has prohibited them from joining the lawsuit. The archdiocese now plans to publish a new revised, and undoubtedly heavily redacted, edition of the report in March.
The developers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine have previously undisclosed ties to the re-named British Eugenics Society as well as other Eugenics-linked institutions like the Wellcome Trust.
By Jeremy Loffredo and Whitney Webb December 26, 2020
On April 30th, AstraZeneca and Oxford University announced a “landmark agreement” for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. The agreement involves AstraZeneca overseeing aspects of the development as well as manufacturing and distribution while the Oxford side, via the Jenner Institute and Oxford Vaccine Group, researched and developed the vaccine. Less than a month after this agreement was reached, the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership was awarded a contract from the US government as part of Operation Warp Speed, the public-private COVID-19 vaccination effort dominated by the US military and US intelligence.
Though the partnership was announced in April, Oxford’s Jenner Institute had already begun developing the COVID-19 vaccine months before, in mid-January. According to a recent BBC report, it was in January that the Jenner Institute first became aware of how serious the pandemic would soon become, when Professor Andrew Pollard, who works for both the Jenner Institute and heads the Oxford Vaccine Group, “shared a taxi with a modeler who worked for the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.” During the taxi ride, “the scientist told him data suggested there was going to be a pandemic not unlike the 1918 flu.” Due to this sole encounter, we are told, the Jenner Institute then began to pour millions into the early development of a vaccine for COVID-19 well before the scope of the crisis was clear.
For much of 2020, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was treated as an early front-runner, though its lead would later be marred by scandals related to its clinical trials, including the death of participants, sudden trial pauses, the use of a problematic “placebo” with its own host of side effects and the “unintentional” mis-dosing of some participants that skewed its self-reported efficacy rate.
The significant issues that emerged during trials have provoked little concern from the vaccine’s two lead developers, despite critical attention from even mainstream media of its complications. The lead developer of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, Adrian Hill, told NBC on December 9th that the experimental vaccine should be approved and distributed to the public before the conclusion of the safety trials, saying,” to wait for the end of the trial would be the middle of next year. That’s too late, this vaccine is effective, available at large scale and easily deployed.”
Sarah Gilbert, the other lead researcher on the vaccine, seemed to believe that pre-mature safety approval was likely, telling the BBC on December 13 that the chances of rolling out the vaccine by the end of the year are “pretty high.” Now, the UK is expected to approve the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine shortly after Christmas, with India also set to approve the vaccine next week.
While the controversies surrounding the vaccine’s trials did ultimately undermine its previous frontrunner status, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine remains heavily promoted as the vaccine of choice for the developing world, as it is cheaper and has much less complicated storage requirement than its main competitors, Pfizer and Moderna.
Earlier this month, Dr. Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the Lancet medical journal, told CNBC that “The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is the vaccine right now that is going to be able to immunize the planet more effectively, more rapidly than any other vaccine we have” in large part because it is a “vaccine that can get to lower middle-income countries.” CNBC also quoted Andrew Baum, global head of health care for Citi Group, as saying that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine “is really the only vaccine that is going to suppress or even eradicate SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the many millions of individuals in the developing world.”
In addition to longstanding claims that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will be the vaccine of choice for the developing world, this vaccine candidate has also been treated by several outlets in the mainstream and even independent media as “good for people, bad for profits” due to the partnership’s “explicit intention of supplying [the vaccine] around the world on a not-for-profit basis, meaning that the poorest nations on the planet will not have to worry about being shut out of a cure due to lack of funds.”
However, investigation into the vaccine’s developers and the realities of their “no-profit pledge” reveals a very different story than that which has been spun for most of the year by corporate press releases, experts and academics tied to the vaccine and the mainstream press.
For instance, mainstream media has had little, if anything, to say about the role of the vaccine developers’ private company – Vaccitech – in the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership, a company whose main investors include former top Deutsche Bank executives, Silicon Valley behemoth Google and the UK government. All of them stand to profit from the vaccine alongside the vaccine’s two developers, Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert, who retain an estimated 10% stake in the company. Another overlooked point is the plan to dramatically alter the current sales model for the vaccine following the initial wave of its administration, which would see profits soar, especially if the now obvious push to make COVID-19 vaccination an annual affair for the foreseeable future is made reality.
Yet, arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK Eugenics movement. The latter organization, named for the “father of eugenics” Francis Galton, is the re-named UK Eugenics Society, a group notorious for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to “improve racial stock” by reducing the population of those deemed inferior for over a century.
The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute’s past members have called for reducing population growth.
In the final installment of this series on Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s vaccination effort, and race, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine’s ties to Eugenics-linked institutions, the secretive role of Vaccitech, and the myth of the vaccine’s sale being “non-profit” and altruistically motivated are explored in detail.
GlaxoSmithKline and the Jenner Institute
The Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research was initially established in 1995 in Compton in Berkshire as a public-private partnership between the UK government, via the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health, and the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. Following a “review by the [institute’s] sponsors,” it was relaunched in 2005 in Oxford under the leadership of Adrian Hill, who—prior to that appointment—held a senior position at the Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genetics. Hill, the lead developer of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, still leads a research group at Wellcome aimed at “understand[ing] the genetic basis of susceptibility to different infectious diseases, especially. . . severe respiratory infections,” which conducts most of its studies in Africa. The UK’s Medical Research Council has also become a collaborator with the Wellcome Trust, specifically on vaccine-related initiatives. The Wellcome Trust, discussed at greater length later in this article, was originally created with funding from Henry Wellcome, who founded the company that later became GlaxoSmithKline.
Hill’s partner at the Jenner Institute and the other co-developer of the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine is Sarah Gilbert. Gilbert also hails from the Wellcome Trust, where she was a “program director,” and is a student of Hill’s. Together, Gilbert and Hill have worked to position the institute to be the center of all future vaccination efforts undertaken in response to global pandemics.
Professor Sarah Gilbert at Oxford, Photo by John Cairns
The Jenner Institute’s relocation to Oxford was largely facilitated by the Medical Research Council, which donated £1.25 million between 2005 and 2006, after the decision was made to replace the institute’s original sponsors (GlaxoSmithKline, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health) with the University of Oxford and the Institute for Animal Health, now called the Pirbright Institute. The involvement of Pirbright meant that the relaunched Jenner Institute became unique in developing vaccines for both humans and livestock.
The relaunched Jenner Institute has come to dominate publicly funded vaccine development in the UK as well as the testing of vaccines produced by the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies via clinical trials and has overseen prominent safety trials for vaccines of high media interest in recent years. Some of the Jenner Institute–conducted trials later draw controversy, such as those using South African infants in 2009 in which seven infants died.
An investigation conducted by the British Medical Journal found that the Hill-led Jenner Institute had, in the South African instance, knowingly misled parents about the negative results of and questionable methods used in animal studies as well the vaccine being known to be ineffective. The vaccine in question, an experimental tuberculosis vaccine developed jointly by Emergent Biosolutions and the Jenner Institute, was scrapped after the controversial study in infants confirmed what was already known, that the vaccine was ineffective. The trial, largely funded by Oxford and the Wellcome Trust, was subsequently praised as “historic” by the BBC. Hill, at the time the study was conducted, had a personal financial stake in the vaccine.
Similar instances of dodgy practices in efficacy trials and the effects of increased dosages have led vaccine experts to criticize the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Hill and Gilbert. Hill and Gilbert hold a considerable financial stake in the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. While the vaccine reportedly has an efficacy of over 90 percent, those figures—often cited in mainstream reports—are self-reported by the vaccine’s developers and manufacturers (i.e., the Oxford team and AstraZeneca), which is significant given that Hill and other Jenner Institute scientists have previously been caught manipulating trial results to benefit a vaccine product in which they were personally invested.
The prominence of the Jenner Institute in vaccine development and testing has largely come through Hill’s additional leadership role at the UK’s Vaccines Network, which chooses what vaccines to develop, how to develop them, and which firms should receive “targeted investments” from the UK government. The Vaccines Network also plays a key role in identifying “what vaccine technologies could play an important role in future outbreaks.” Two of the main backers of the UK’s Vaccines Network are the Wellcome Trust and GlaxoSmithKline.
Unsurprisingly, the Vaccines Network has steered many millions of pounds toward the Hill-run Jenner Institute, with completed projects including a “plug and display” virus-like particle platform for rapid-response vaccination. Also funded by the Vaccines Network were the Jenner Institute’s initial studies of novel chimpanzee adenovirus vaccines for coronavirus (in this case, MERS), the same viral vector used for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. In addition to the Vaccines Network, the Jenner Institute also coordinates the efforts of the EU’s Vaccines Network equivalent, MultiMalVax.
Professor Adrian Hill at the Jenner Institute, Photo by John Cairns
The Jenner Institute also has a close relationship with GlaxoSmithKline and the Italian biotech Okairos, which was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline in 2014. Soon after it was acquired, Okairos, and its new owner GlaxoSmithKline, became key players in the 2014 experimental Ebola vaccine push, an effort that mirrors the current COVID-19 vaccine development rush in many key ways. the rushed safety trials for that vaccine were overseen by Adrian Hill and the Jenner Institute and funded by the UK government and the Wellcome Trust. GlaxoSmithKline and Okairos are the only firms represented on the Jenner Institute’s Scientific Advisory Board.
The Jenner Institute, along with GlaxoSmithKline-Okairos and a small French biotech called Imaxio, have been developing an experimental malaria vaccine since 2015, with human trials of that vaccine announced on December 12, 2020. Those trials will be conducted on 4,800 children in Africa over the course of 2021, in many of the same countries where Hill’s research group at the Wellcome Center for Human Genetics has been studying genetic susceptibility to several diseases. “A lot more people will die in Africa this year from malaria than will die from Covid,” Hill recently said in regard to the soon-to-begin trials.
Currently, the Jenner Institute is funded by Jenner Vaccine Foundation, but the foundation’s documents note on several occasions a considerable influx of money from Wellcome Trust Strategic Awards. A “special review panel” from the Wellcome Trust actually lobbied the Jenner Institute to apply for further “strategic core funding” from the trust after visiting the institute and appraising its work. The Jenner Institute frames its funding from Wellcome as the key guidance behind its development decisions, which are made “based on the successful model of Wellcome Trust Strategic Award support.”
The Jenner Institute’s foundation, however, is not the only source of income for its lead researchers. Hill and Gilbert have been working to commercialize many of the institute’s vaccines through their own private company, Vaccitech. Though media reports often describe the vaccine as being a joint effort between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford, Vaccitech is a key stakeholder in that partnership, given that the vaccine candidate relies on technology developed by Hill and Gilbert and owned by Vaccitech. A deeper look into Vaccitech offers a clue as to why the company’s name has been absent from nearly all media reports on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, as it demolishes the much-touted claim that the vaccine is “nonprofit” and offered at low cost for charitable reasons.
Vaccitech: doing well by doing “good”?
The official reason Sarah Gilbert and Adrian Hill created Vaccitech in 2016 per The Times is because “Oxford’s researchers [are] encouraged to form companies to commercialize their work.” Vaccitech, like other “commercialized” Oxford research enterprises, was spun out of the Jenner Institute via the university’s commercialization arm, Oxford Science Innovations, which is currently Vaccitech’s largest stakeholder at 46 percent. Hill and Gilbert are reported to maintain a 10 percent stake in the company.
The largest investor in Oxford Science Innovations, and by extension one of the largest shareholders in Vaccitech, is Braavos Capital, the venture-capital firm started in 2019 by Andrew Crawford-Brunt, Deutsche Bank’s long-time global head of equity trading at its London branch. Through its stake in Oxford Science Innovations, Braavos owns about 9 percent of Vaccitech.
Prior to COVID-19, Vaccitech’s main focus, especially last year, was the development of a universal vaccine for the flu. Vaccitech’s efforts in this regard were praised by Google, which is also invested in Vaccitech. At the same time, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was funding research to develop a universal flu vaccine, reportedly because the field of influenza vaccinology was not yet able “to design a flu vaccine that would protect broadly against the strains of flu that infect people every winter and those in nature that could emerge to trigger a disruptive and deadly pandemic,” according to a STAT News report from last year. The Gates Foundation effort originally partnered with Google’s cofounder Larry Page and his wife Lucy.
To fully finance Hill and Gilbert’s Vaccitech, and specifically its quest to develop a universal flu vaccine, Oxford Science Innovations sought £600 million from “outside investors,” chief among them the Wellcome Trust and the venture-capital arm of Google, Google Ventures This means that Google is poised to make a profit from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine at a time when its video platform YouTube has moved to ban COVID-19 vaccine–related content that shines a negative light on COVID-19 vaccines, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca candidate. Other investors in Vaccitech include Sequoia Capital’s Chinese branch and the Chinese pharmaceutical company Fosun Pharma. In addition, the UK government has put an estimated £5 million into the company and is also expected to make a return on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
Vaccitech’s homepage showing company co-founders Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert. From Vaccitech.co.uk
Information on the profit motive behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been muddied due to the extensive media promotion of the claim that Hill and Gilbert will not be collecting royalties on the vaccine and that AstraZeneca is not making a profit off the vaccine. However, this is only true until the pandemic is “officially” declared over, and the virus is labeled a persistent or seasonal condition that will require the mass administration of COVID-19 vaccines at regular intervals and possibly annually. Sky News reported that the determination of when the pandemic is over “will be based on the views of a range of [unspecified] independent bodies.” At that point, both Vaccitech and Oxford will obtain royalties from AstraZeneca’s sales of the vaccine.
Those tied to the vaccine have been at the center of promoting the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine will soon become an annual affair. For instance, in early May, John Bell—an Oxford medical professor and an “architect” of the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership — told NBC News “I suspect we may need to have relatively regular vaccinations against coronaviruses going into the future,” adding that the vaccine would likely be needed every year like the flu vaccine. NBC News failed to note that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in which Bell is involved stands to significantly benefit financially if that does come to pass.
More recently, Bell told The Week that, “should there prove to be a market for regular vaccinations against coronavirus in the future, ‘there is some money to be made.’” Such sentiments have been echoed by Pascal Soriot, the CEO of AstraZeneca, who told Bloomberg last month that the company stood to make a “reasonable profit” once the pandemic was declared over and COVID-19 deemed a seasonal illness requiring regular vaccinations. On this matter, Vaccitech’s CEO, Bill Enright, stated that Vaccitech investors would receive a “big chunk of the royalties from a successful vaccine as well as ‘milestone’ payments” if and when the pandemic is declared over and COVID-19 vaccines become a seasonal event.
Vaccitech, in particular, appears quite certain that this possibility is slated to become reality. For all subsequent iterations of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, Vaccitech will reacquire a much larger percentage of rights to the vaccine, rights it is currently splitting with Oxford for the first iteration. Sky News has noted that the technology that Vaccitech owns “could drive the second generation of COVID-19 vaccines” and that it “has [already] received £2.3 million of public funding to develop it.”
US government officials such as Anthony Fauci have also signal that the COVID-19 vaccine will require annual shots. Notably, the government, through Health and Human Service’s BARDA, has poured over $1 million dollar into the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine development. In addition to government officials, several recently publishedmainstream media reports have claimed that the “expert” consensus “seem[s] to be leaning toward an annual shot like the flu vaccine” with regards to the COVID-19 vaccine. For instance, Dr. Charles Chiu, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California–San Francisco, recently told Salon, “This may end up being a vaccine that’s not a one-time thing or even a two-time thing. . .it may end up being what we call either a seasonal vaccine, or vaccine that needs to be administered every couple of years.”
Such hints about an annual COVID-19 vaccine from 2021 onwards have recently become commonplace from the leading COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers themselves. For instance, on December 13th, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla was quoted by telegraph as saying, “How long this [vaccine] protection lasts is something we don’t know … I think it is a likely scenario that you will need periodical vaccinations.” Pfizer also recently issued a statement that noted that “we don’t know how the virus will change, and we also don’t know how durable the protective effect of any vaccination will be,” adding that its vaccine would be suitable “for repeated administration as booster shots” in the event that the vaccine only induces an immune response for a few months.
Then, this past Tuesday, Moderna released information that suggested immunity from its COVID-19 vaccine would only last several months, with Fobes writing that “the duration of neutralizing antibodies from the Moderna vaccine will be relatively short, potentially less than a year,” an outcome that would favor the push for an annual COVID-19 shot. The developer of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, Ugur Sahin of BioNTech, also stated on Tuesday that “The virus will stay with us for the next 10 years…We need to get used to the fact there’ll be more outbreaks.” He later added that “if the virus becomes more efficient…we might need a higher uptake of the vaccine for life to return to normal,” implying that these regular outbreaks he foresees occurring over the next ten years would be correlated with increased vaccine administration.
Quotes from the developers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine themselves also point to a pandemic-dominated future and a desire for the crisis to be prolonged so that the vaccine can be widely distributed. Gilbert told the UK Independent in August that she believes COVID-19 is just the beginning and that COVID-like pandemics will become more frequent in the near future. The Jenner Institute vaccine team seems so determined to create the COVID vaccine that, in June, Hill was quoted by the Washington Post in June as stating that he wanted the pandemic to stick around, saying, “We’re in the bizarre position of wanting COVID to stay, at least for a little while. But cases are declining.” He also stated that his team was in “a race against the virus disappearing.”
With the vaccine developers, “medical experts,” government officials, and the CEOs of major vaccine manufacturers all agreeing that a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine is an increasingly likely outcome, it is worth considering a possible ulterior motive regarding the initial “nonprofit” model being used by the Jenner Institute/Vaccitech and AstraZeneca for their joint COVID-19 vaccine.
Given that vaccine guidancein several countries states that each dose of the multidose COVID-19 vaccine must be produced by the same manufacturer as previous doses, the implication is that in the event of a need for periodic COVID-19 vaccine variants, those who initially received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine would likely be required to receive that same “brand” of vaccine seasonally. In other words, those who initially received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine would likely be required, not just to receive a second dose of the same “brand,” but continue receiving that same “brand” of vaccine every year. Notably, no interaction studies have yet been doneon the interactions between the COVID-19 vaccines and other medications as well as other vaccines.
If this turns out to be the case, it would certainly behoove the Oxford-Vaccitech-AstraZeneca team to want their vaccine to be the most widely used one in the first year in order to guarantee the largest market for subsequent annual COVID-19 vaccines. This could be a possible motive behind the effort of the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership “to supply the entire world with the Oxford jab” and to supply the vaccine “to the most vulnerable groups to COVID-19.” This vaccine has already been purchased, even before regulatory approval, by governments around the world, including in Europe, North America, Australia and most Latin American countries.
The Wellcome Trust
Adrian Hill currently holds a senior position at The WellcomeTrust’s Centre for Human Genomics. The Wellcome Trust is a scientific charity based in London, established in 1936 with funds from pharmaceutical magnate Henry Wellcome. As previously mentioned, Wellcome founded the pharmaceutical company that eventually became the industry giant GlaxoSmithKline. Today, the Wellcome Trust has a $25.9 billion endowment and engages in philanthropic endeavors, including funding clinical trials and research.
Hill has been closely tied to Wellcome for decades. In 1994, he participated in the founding of the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics and was awarded a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowship the following year. He became a Wellcome professor of human genetics in 1996.
The Wellcome Center for Human Genetics website boasts of the large-scale genetic mapping they’ve conducted in Africa. The center also publishes papers that explore genetic dispositions in relation to male fertility and “reproductive success” The crossroads between race and genes is important in the center’s work, as an entire working group at the center, the Myers Group, is dedicated to mapping the “genetic impacts of migration events.” The center also funded a paper that argued that so long as eugenics is not coercive it’s an acceptable policy initiative. The paper asks, “Is the fact that an action or policy is a case of eugenics necessarily a reason not to do it?” According to Hill’s page on the Wellcome Trust site, race and genetics have long played a central role in his scientific approach, and his group currently focuses on the role genetics plays in African populations with regard to susceptibility to specific infectious diseases.
The Wellcome Genome Campus, which houses the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, is located on the grounds of Hixton Hall, in Cambridgeshire, England.
Of even greater concern, last year Science Mag reported that Wellcome was accused by both a whistleblower and the University of Cape Town South Africa of illegally exploiting hundreds of Africans by “commercializing a gene chip without proper legal agreements and without the consent of the hundreds of African people whose donated DNA was used to develop the chip.” Jantina de Vries, a bioethicist at the University of Cape Town South Africa told the journal that it was “clearly unethical.” Since the controversy, other African institutions and peoples such as the indigenous Nama peoples of Namibia have demanded that Wellcome return the DNA it collected.
The Wellcome Centre regularly co-funds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with the Gates Foundation, a foundation that actively and admittedly engages in population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the wide-spread distribution of injectable long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs). The Wellcome Trust has also directly funded studies that sought to develop methods to “improve uptake” of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda.
As researcher Jacob Levich wrote in the Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism, LARCs afford women in the Global South “the least choice possible short of actual sterilization.” Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they “leave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.”
One example is Norplant, a contraceptive implant manufactured by Schering (now Bayer) that can prevent pregnancy for up to five years. It was taken off the US market in 2002 after more than fifty thousand women filed lawsuits against the company and the doctors who prescribed it. Seventy of those class action suit were related to side effects such as depression, extreme nausea, scalp-hair loss, ovarian cysts, migraines, and excessive bleeding.
Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa by the Gates Foundation in conjunction with USAID and EngenderHealth. Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to “ improve the biological stock of the human race.” Jadelle is not approved by the FDA for use in the United States.
Another scandal-ridden LARC is Pfizer’s Depo-Provera, an injectable contraceptive used in several African and Asian countries. The Gates Foundation and USAID have collaborated to fund this drug’s distribution and introduce it into the health-care systems of countries including Uganda, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Bangladesh, and India.
Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, where Hill’s Jenner Institute resides, is enmeshed with the Gates Foundation. His employer, the University of Oxford, has received $11 million for vaccine development research from the foundation over the past three years and $208 million in grants over the past decade. In 2016, the Gates Foundation gave $36 million to a team of researchers that was headed by Pollard for vaccine development. In addition, Pollard’s private laboratory is funded by the Gates Foundation. Given this, it should come as no surprise that the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative (GAVI), a public-private partnership founded and currently funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, plans to distribute the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to low-income, predominantly African and Asian, countries once it’s approved.
The Galton Institute: Eugenics for the Twenty-First Century
Both the Wellcome Trust and Adrian Hill share a close relationship with the most infamous eugenics society in Europe, the British Eugenics Society. The Eugenics Society was renamed the Galton Institute in 1989, a name that pays homage to Sir Francis Galton, the so-called father of eugenics, a field that he often described as the “science of improving racial stock.”
In the case of the Wellcome Trust, the Trust’s library is the guardian of the Eugenics Society historical archives. When the Wellcome Trust first set up its Contemporary Medical Archive Center, the first organizational archive it sought to acquire was tellingly that of the Eugenics Society-Galton Institute. Wellcome’s Website describes the Eugenics Society’s original purpose as “to increase public understanding of heredity and to influence parenthood in Britain, with the aim of biological improvement of the nation and mitigation of the burdens deemed to be imposed on society by the genetically ‘unfit’.” It also states the interests of the society’s members “ranged from the biology of heredity, a subject that developed rapidly during the first half of the 20th century, to the provision of birth control methods, artificial insemination, statistics, sex education and family allowances.” Lesley Hall, Wellcome’s senior archivist, has referred to Francis Galton, a racist eugenicist, as an “eminent late nineteenth century polymath” in her discussion of the Eugenics Society archive held at Wellcome.
Several top governance positions at the former British Eugenics Society, now the Galton Institute, include individuals who originally worked at The Wellcome Trust, including the Galton Institute’s president Turi King. Dr. Elena Bochukova, a current Galton Council Member and Galton lecturer, previously worked under the direction of Adrian Hill at the Wellcome Trust Center for Human Genetics. The Galton Institute’s Senior Genetics Researcher, Dr. Jess Buxton, was previously a ‘genetics researcher’ at the Wellcome Trust and then went on to carry out independent research financed by Wellcome. Her research, which is particularly race oriented, includes creating the first genetic sequence map of a native Nigerian. Moreover, Adrian Hill himself spoke at the Eugenics Society-Galton Institute at the celebration of their 100th anniversary in 2008.
The Galton Institute publishes what they now call the Galton Review, previously titled the Eugenics Review, where various members of the self-proclaimed “learned society” publish papers focused on population issues, genetics, evolutionary biology, and fertility.
A look at early issues of the Eugenics Review shines a light on Galton’s original ambitions. In the 1955 issues titled “The Immigration of Colored People,” an author asks, “What will become of our national character, good workmanship etc. in the course of a few decades if this immigration of negroes and negroids continues unchecked?” The article ends with an appeal to readers to write their parliamentary representatives and urge them that in view of “racial betterment or deterioration” something must be done urgently to “check the present influx of africans and other negroids.”
Today, it appears that the Galton Institute continues to see the immigration of racial minorities into European cities as an unchecked threat. David Coleman, an Oxford professor of demographics and a fellow at the institute runs an anti-immigration organization and advocacy group called. Migration Watch—whose mission is to preserve the European culture of the UK by lobbying the government to stem legal immigration and publishing data that supposedly demonstrates the biological and cultural threat of increasing immigration.
A 1961 issues of the Eugenics Review titled “The Impending Crisis” claims the function of the institute’s upcoming conference is “to honor Margaret Sanger” and describes the population crisis as “quantity threatening quality.”
Sanger, known as the “pioneer of the American birth control movement” was a staunch advocate for promoting “racial betterment” and the key architect of the Negro Project, which she claimed “was established for the benefit of the colored people. “But as medical ethics fellow at Harvard Medical School, Harriet Washington, argues in her book. Medical Apartheid, “The Negro Project sought to find the best way to reduce the black population by promoting eugenic principals.” Sanger was an American member of the British Eugenics Society.
Another early member of the Galton Institute was John Harvey Kellogg, prominent business man and eugenicist. Kellogg founded the Race Betterment Foundation and argued that immigrants and nonwhites would damage the American gene pool. Yet another example is Charles Davenport, a scientist known for his collaborative research efforts with eugenicists in Nazi Germany and his contributions to Nazi Germany’s brutal racial policies who was vice president of the Galton Institute in 1931.
Another more recent member of the Galton Institute was David Weatherall, for whom the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine at Oxford is named. Weatherall was a member of the Galton Institute when it was still named the Eugenics Society and he remained a member until his death in 2018. Weatherall, who was knighted by the British monarch in 1987 for his contributions to science, addressed the Galton Institute on numerous occasions and gave a senior lecture on genetics at the institute in 2014, of which no transcript or video is available. As an Oxford professor, Weatherall was Adrian Hill’s doctoral adviser and eventually his boss when Hill began working at the Weatherall Institute conducting immunogenics research in Africa. A key fixture of the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine since its founding is Walter Bodmer, a former president of the Galton Institute.
While the Galton Institute has attempted to distance itself from its past of promoting racial eugenics with surface-level public relations efforts, it has not stopped family members of the infamous racist from achieving leadership positions at the institute. Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than David. J Gulton whose work includes Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century. David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project, originally dreamt up by Galton’s former president Walter Bodmer, had “enormously increased . . . the scope for eugenics . . . because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.”
This new “wider definition of eugenics,” Galton has said, “would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.” In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to “whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.”
Who gets the safest vaccines?
Considering the degree to which the players and institutions behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (including the lead developer) are tied and connected to institutions that have been instrumental in the rise and perpetuation of racial eugenics, it’s concerning that this particular vaccine is being portrayed by scientists and media alike as the COVID-19 vaccine for the poor and the Global South.
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine sells at a fraction of the cost of its COVID-19 vaccine competitors—running between 3 and 5 dollars per dose. Moderna and Pfizer cost 25 to 37 dollars and 20 dollars per dose, respectively. As CNN recently reported, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will “be far easier to transport and distribute in developing countries than its rivals,” several of which require complicated and costly cold supply chains. When the Thomson Reuters Foundation asked several experts which COVID-19 vaccine could “reach the poorest soonest,” all declared a preference for the Oxford-AstraZeneca candidate.
There is also the added fact that a host of safety issues have come to surround the vaccine. Recently, on November 21, a forty-year-old participant in AstraZeneca’s clinical trial who lives in India sent a legal notice to the Serum Institute of India Alleging that the vaccine caused him to develop acute neuroencephalopathy, or brain damage. In the notice, the participant said he “must be compensated, in the least, for all the sufferings that he and his family have undergone and are likely to undergo in the future.”
In response, the Serum Institute claimed the participant’s medical complications are unrelated to the vaccine trial and said it would take “legal action” against the brain-damaged participant for maligning the company’s reputation, seeking damages in excess of $13 million. “This is the first time I have ever heard of a sponsor threatening a trial participant,” Amar Jesani, editor of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, said of the incident. The Serum Institute has received at least $18.6 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and has a deal with AstraZeneca to manufacture a billion doses of the vaccine.
Other manufacturers chosen by Oxford-AstraZeneca to produce their vaccine are also no strangers to controversy. For instance, their manufacturing partner in China, Shenzhen Kangtai Biological Products, has been at the center of controversy for years, especially after 17 infants died from its Hepatitis B vaccine in 2013. The New York Times cited Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying: “Imagine if a similar scandal is reported again in China…It’s not just going to undermine the confidence of the company manufacturing the vaccine, it’s also going to hurt the reputation of AstraZeneca itself and their vaccine, too.”
In another example, the manufacturing partner chosen to produce the vaccine in the US is the scandal-ridden company with ties to the 2001 anthrax attacks, Emergent Biosolutions. Emergent Biosolutions, previously known as BioPort, has a long track record of knowingly selling and marketing products that were never tested for safety and efficacy, including its anthrax vaccine BioThrax and its biodefense product Trobigard. The current head of quality control for Emergent Biosolutions’ lead manufacturing facility in the US has no expertise in pharmaceutical manufacturing and is instead a former high-ranking military intelligence official who operated in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.
The issues raised by their decision to partner with manufacturers with dark histories of product safety issues are compounded by the adverse reactions reported in the Oxford-AstraZeneca trials as well as the ways in which those trials have been conducted. In September, AstraZeneca was forced to pause its experimental COVID-19 vaccine trial after a woman in the UK developed a “suspected serious reaction” that the The New York Times reported was consistent with transverse myelitis. TM is a neurological disorder characterized by inflammation of the spinal cord, a major element of the central nervous system. It often results in weakness of the limbs, problems emptying the bladder, and paralysis. Patients can become severely disabled, and there is currently no effective cure
Concern over an association between TM and vaccines is well established. A review of published case studies in 2009 documented thirty-seven cases of TM associated with various vaccines, including hepatitis B, measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, among others in infants, children, and adults. The researchers in Israel noted, “The associations of different vaccines with a single autoimmune phenomenon allude to the idea that a common denominator of these vaccines, such as an adjuvant, might trigger this syndrome.” Even the New York Timesarticle on the AstraZeneca trial pause notes past “speculation” that vaccines might be able to trigger TM.
In July, an Oxford-AstraZeneca trial participant developed symptoms of TM, and the vaccine trial was paused at that time. An “independent panel” ultimately concluded the illness was unrelated to the vaccine, and the trial continued. Yet, as Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, these panels are typically made up of “biostatisticians and also medical representatives from the sponsor drug company running the trial.” Then, in October, a trial participant in Brazil died, though in that case, AstraZeneca suggested that the person was part of the control group and thus hadn’t received the COVID-19 vaccine.
According to Forbes, the AstraZeneca vaccine was ineffective at stopping the spread of coronavirus in their animal trials. All six monkeys injected with AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine became infected with the disease after being inoculated. All the monkeys were put to death, which means that it will remain unknown whether those monkeys would have suffered other adverse effects.
Another concern is that trial administrators gave the trial control group (for both human and animal trials) Pfizer’s Nimenrix, a meningitis vaccine, as opposed to a saline solution, which is regarded as the gold standard for controls because researchers can be sure the saline solution won’t cause any adverse reactions. Using Pfizer’s meningitis vaccine as the control placebo allows AstraZeneca to downplay any adverse reactions in its COVID-19 vaccine group by showing that the control group suffered adverse reactions as well. “The meningitis vaccine in the AstraZeneca trial is what I would call a ‘fauxcebo,’ a fake control whose real purpose is to disguise or hide injury in the vaccine group,” said Mary Holland, general counsel at Children’s Health Defense.
Eugenics under another name
Despite these safety concerns and clinical trial scandals, close to 160 countries have purchased the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and now reports are suggesting that India, the country with the second largest population on Earth, is likely to approve this vaccine by next week.
As documented here, while the vaccine may be heralded as “vital for lower-income countries,” the Oxford-AstraZeneca project is no mere philanthropic pursuit. Not only is there a significant profit motive behind the vaccine, but its lead researcher’s connection to the British Eugenics Society adds another level of warranted scrutiny.
For those encountering stories of eugenicists, it’s common to dismiss such activity as that of “conspiracy theories.” However, it’s undeniable that several prominent individuals and institutions that remain active today have clear ties to eugenicist thinking, which was not so taboo just a few decades ago. Unfortunately, this holds true for the individuals and institutions associated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, who, as demonstrated in this article, immerse themselves in studies of race science and population control – primarily in Africa while working closely with institutions that have direct and longstanding links to the worst of the Eugenics movement.
As this series has shown, there are many concerns regarding the points where race and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the US and abroad intersect, both publicly and privately. Part I of this series raised questions about the policy-shaping role of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which suggested that the US government make COVID-19 vaccines available to ethnic minorities and the mentally challenged first. Part II explained how in order to allocate COVID-19 vaccines in the US, health agencies are using a program created by Palantir, a company with a record of helping the US agencies target ethnic minorities through immigration policy and racist policing.
Furthermore, there are plans in place to exercise what could reasonably be described as economic coercion to pressure people to “voluntarily” get vaccinated. Such coercion will be obviously be more effective on poor and working communities, meaning communities of color will be disproportionately affected as well.
Considering these facts, and the case for scrutinizing the safety of Oxford-AstraZeneca’s “affordable” vaccine option made above, any harm caused by vaccine allocation policy in the US and beyond is likely to disproportionately affect poor communities, especially communities of color.
As such, the public should take all vaccine rollout policy with a grain of salt, even when they come cloaked in language of inclusion, racial justice, and public health preservation. As the co-founder of the American Eugenics Society (later renamed “Society for the Study of Social Biology”) Frederick Osborn put it in 1968, “Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.”
Suggests that “employment suspension or stay-at-home orders” should be used to force people to get a jab
Published 2 October, 2020
By Steve Watson
skaman306 / Getty Images
A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine has called for mandating a coronavirus vaccine, and outlined strategies for how Americans could be FORCED to take it.
The paper warns that an immediate mandate for the vaccine would spark too much resistance and backlash, so the writers suggest that at first it should be voluntary.
However, it suggests that if not enough people are willing to get the vaccine within the first few weeks of its availability, it should be transformed into an obligation, with penalties put into place for refusal.
The paper outlines “six trigger criteria” that need to be met before the vaccine is made mandatory, and that it should be rolled out to specific demographics of the population first.
“Only recommended groups should be considered for a vaccination mandate,” initially, according to the paper, which cites “high risk groups” as the first set of people.
“[T]he elderly, health professionals working in high-risk situations or working with high-risk patients…persons with certain underlying medical conditions,” as well as those in “high-density settings such as prisons and dormitories” should be mandated to get the jab, the paper says.
It also suggests that active-duty military service members should be among the first that are forced into the vaccination.
The paper proclaims that “noncompliance should incur a penalty” and notes that it should be a “relatively substantial” one.
It suggests that “employment suspension or stay-at-home orders,” should be issued, but that fines should be discouraged because they can be legally challenged, and “may stoke distrust without improving uptake.”
The paper also suggests that government health authorities should avoid making public their close relationship with vaccine manufacturers, to quell public mistrust.
Just coincidentally, the authors of the paper reside at Yale and Stanford, institutions that have received substantial funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for vaccine development.