In March, the United Nations New World Order (UNNWO) announced its annual International Day of Happiness global campaign, along with a call for solidarity and unity in the global fight against COVID-19
The UNNWO goals, such as ending poverty, hunger, gender inequality and polluted water, sound admirable, but are just pawns used to further a one-world government regime with power concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires
A one-world government tactic that New World Order relies on is media censorship, which the liberal “fact-checking” group Media Matters is now advocating for anyone who doesn’t align with the New World Order mission
The World Health Organization, whose biggest funders include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, aims to vaccinate everyone across the globe by 2030 and to track who has and has not been vaccinated
Mass COVID-19 vaccination poses health dangers and even vaccine advocate Bill Gates predicts adverse reactions to the vaccine will claim 700,000 victims
ℹ️ From Dr. Joseph Mercola
Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.
Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media is a key player and has been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.
I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.
Originally published: 07/28/2020
The COVID-19 pandemic is being used to facilitate the efforts of a select few to create a one-world government with power concentrated in the hands of an elitist group of billionaires.
In March 2020, the United Nations New World Order (UNNWO) announced their annual International Day of Happiness global campaign, along with a call for solidarity and unity in the global fight against COVID-19.
The campaign theme, according to UNNWO, was:
“… a call on all 7.8 billion members of the global human family, and all 206 nations and territories of planet earth, to unite in solidarity, and steadfast resolve, in fighting back against the COVID 19 Coronavirus …”
While the UNNWO sustainability goals, such as addressing poverty, hunger, polluted waterways, and more, sound admirable,
they rely on one-world government manipulations such as media censorship, mass surveillance of citizens and total governmental control of your health care decisions, as I will explain in detail in this article.
One clear example of the dangers of one-world initiatives is the World Health Organization’s Immunization Agenda 2030, in which the aim is to vaccinate everyone across the globe.
Bill Gates of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a big WHO funder, has stated he intends to vaccinate the global population against COVID-19,
and then track and monitor each person through digital surveillance.
The Rockefeller Foundation also supports mass-tracking of the citizenry — all under the guise of “public health.”
The reasoning for this is to stop the pandemic.
But, will a gigantic global disease surveillance system created under the pretext of COVID-19 be dismantled once the pandemic is declared over? Or, will it simply morph into other surveillance functions also presented as mechanisms to protect the “public health?”
As the COVID-19 pandemic passed its six-month mark and the number of reported cases in some countries and states rose, the focus on a vaccine intensified, with numerous vaccine makers vying to be first with results.
That distinction came in mid-July, when the initial results from a clinical trial of a vaccine candidate developed by Moderna, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, received a positive write-up in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)
and pleased Wall Street.
What’s interesting is that Moderna has “never produced an approved vaccine or run a large trial,” according to Stat News. Yet, it seized the COVID-19 opportunity
and forged ahead. When you think about it, though, the exuberance over the vaccine candidate is irrational.
First, as with all vaccines, adverse effects can and will sometimes occur. Even fiercely pro-vaccine advocates have expressed concerns about possible adverse effects of a hurried-up COVID-19 vaccine.
From Bill Gates
(more on that later in this article) to Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier,
to rotavirus vaccine inventor Dr. Paul Offit
— who once held the Merck-endowed chair in vaccinology
at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia — high-profile individuals are talking about it.
Offit expressed reservations about how fast the vaccine companies were pushing development of the vaccine, and warned of possible safety and efficacy problems that could occur from giving it to thousands of people “without a large safety and efficacy trial.”
Frazier had similar concerns, with a more strongly-worded comment: “If you’re going to use a vaccine on billions of people, you better know what that vaccine does.” Along that same line of thinking is the concern — as with all vaccines — that the immunity and/or duration is not assured because the “immunity” is not naturally acquired.
Another concern is that contact tracing and computer apps to determine the whereabouts and contacts of a person who may have been exposed are much too aggressive. For example, even if someone has no symptoms of COVID-19, governments, whether local or national, will have the ability to quarantine a person against their will, according to a YouTuber who recounts her contact tracing training in a video.
Moreover, according to top legal scholar Alan Dershowitz,
a 115-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows authorities to legally inoculate someone with a vaccine against their will for the purpose of safeguarding public health. On the other hand, they cannot do so if the vaccine is intended only to protect a person’s personal health, he says.
While other legal scholars debate just how far the federal government can go with this,
such threats to your rights and health continue to grow. And, certain media groups, who should be supporters of free speech, are leading the charge to take away your free speech rights. Standing at the forefront, the liberal “fact-checking” group Media Matters is trying to discredit vaccine safety groups who they believe could stand in the way of worldwide vaccination.
A smear piece from Media Matters, titled “The Most Notorious Anti-Vax Groups Use Facebook to Lay the Groundwork Against the Novel Coronavirus Vaccine,”
lays the groundwork for discrediting the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Children’s Health Defense and Informed Consent Action Network. The article begins by casting such groups as a threat during COVID-19:
“As novel coronavirus cases spike in the U.S. and numerous efforts are underway to develop a vaccine, the most prominent U.S. anti-vaccination organizations are using Facebook and other social media platforms to poison the well against a potential vaccine.”
Media Matters is angry that Facebook allows the groups’ social media communications to appear educational rather than branding them as “vaccine misinformation.” This is especially important, writes Media Matters, because support for vaccination among the general public is falling:
“Support in the U.S. for vaccination generally has been on a downward trend for the past two decades. A January 2020 poll released by Gallup found that 84% of Americans believe it is ‘important’ to vaccinate children, down from 94% in 2001.
The poll found that support for vaccination has declined ‘among almost all subgroups of the U.S. public.’ Gallup attributed the decline in support for vaccination to the spread of false information about vaccines, in particular the debunked link between vaccines and autism.”
Media Matters cites a 2014 study published in the journal Pediatrics
that identified four ways in which the desirability of vaccination is promoted and how none of the messages is working. The four attempts to “reduce vaccine misperceptions and increase vaccination rates for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)” were listed by the journal as:
Information explaining the lack of evidence that MMR causes autism from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Textual information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by MMR from the Vaccine Information Statement
Images of children who have diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine
A dramatic narrative about an infant who almost died of measles from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet
However, the messages are not working and possibly even backfiring, says Media Matters.
[And] “… attempts to ‘correct false claims about vaccines may be especially likely to be counterproductive.'”
The messages likely backfire because Big Pharma and its buddy, Big Biotech, suffer from a credibility problem — in the case of Big Pharma, from the many medications it has withdrawn after assuring the public they were safe.
Moreover, “anti-vaccination content” — as Media Matters calls it — may be more compelling than messages designed to sell vaccination:
“Another negative factor in play at Facebook and other social media outlets is that research suggests that anti-vaccination content tends to be more popular than pro-vaccine content and anti-vaccine messages …”
The messages are also likely ringing stronger with younger people who tend to be the biggest users of social media, Media Matters admits:
“According to a report from Center for Countering Digital Hate … Americans who ‘use social media more than traditional media to access news and updates about Covid’ say that they will get vaccinated against coronavirus at a rate 10 points lower compared to those who primarily consume traditional media.”
Media Matters’ initial $2 million in funding came from wealthy progressives via the Tides Foundation,
with additional funding from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network, according to National Review.
In 2010, George Soros, one of the richest people in the world, gave the group $1 million, according to The New York Times.
The self-proclaimed “fact checking group,” founded by conservative-turned-progressive David Brock,
states that its mission is to counteract conservative media, and it has been very successful. According to the Daily Caller:
“The group scored its first significant public coup in 2007 with the firing of host Don Imus from MSNBC. Just before Easter that year, a Media Matters employee recorded Imus’s now-famous attack on the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and immediately recognized its inflammatory potential.
The organization swung into action, notifying organizations like the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists, and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, all of which joined the fight … By the end of the week, Imus was fired.”
Media Matters then enlisted the National Hispanic Media Coalition, League of United Latin American Citizens and similar groups to pressure CNN advertisers to oust anchor Lou Dobbs from CNN for alleged racist comments.
In November 2009, Dobbs left CNN, and the Daily Caller quotes a Media Matters staffer who said, “We got him fired.”
Media Matters also launched what they dubbed a “campaign to expose Glenn Beck’s racist rhetoric in an effort to educate advertisers about the practices on his show.” The campaign facilitated his departure from Fox News.
Media Matters is also able to place their biased stories in mainstream outlets as real news. According to the Daily Caller, sources from the organization bragged about planting stories in The Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times and on blogs such as the Daily Kos, Salon and HuffPost. They also reported a warm reception at The New York Times:
“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.
Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”
As described by Sharyl Attkisson, the impact of Media Matters is of concern to everyone:
“The problem is, too many news organizations and even journalism groups such as Poynter use Media Matters and their affiliates as if they are legitimate news sources. They are either unforgivably ignorant of Media Matters’ slants — or choose to keep readers in the dark because they agree with the slant.
One major interest Media Matters and its affiliates have served over the years is that of the pharmaceutical industry. They often smear scientists and journalists who report on prescription drug and vaccine safety issues, falsely labelling them as ‘anti-vaccine.’ Of course, that’s like saying that because I broke news about problems with Firestone tires, I am ‘anti-tire,’ or because I have exposed fraud within charities, I am ‘anti-charity.’ Silly.”
Forbes compiled a list of 10 health care billionaires who have profited since COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic. Topping the list was Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, whose vaccine candidate trial results were published by NEJM.
According to Forbes:
“When the WHO declared a pandemic, Bancel’s estimated net worth was some $720 million. Since then, Moderna’s stock has rallied more than 103%, lifting his fortune to an estimated $1.5 billion. A French citizen, Bancel first joined the billionaire ranks on April 2, when Moderna’s stock rose on the news that the firm was planning to begin phase two trials of its vaccine.”
Bancel is far from the only person who has become a “biotech billionaire” thanks to the lucrative development of COVID-19 vaccines, treatments and diagnostic tools solicited by governments and funded by taxpayers. Others include:
1. Gustavo Denegri — With a net worth of $4.5 billion, Denegri has a 45% stake in the Italian biotech company DiaSorin.
2. Seo Jung-Jin — With a net worth of $8.4 billion, Jung-Jin co-founded Celltrion, a biopharma company in Seoul.
3. Alain Mérieux — With a net worth of $7.6 billion, Mérieux’s grandfather founded BioMérieux, a French multinational biotech company.
4. Maja Oeri — With a net worth of $3.2 billion, Oeri is a descendent of Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche, the founder of pharmaceutical giant Roche and owns about 5% of Roche’s shares.
5. Leonard Schleifer — With a net worth of $2.2 billion, Schleifer’s wealth is attributed to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which he co-founded.
6. George Yancopoulos — With a net worth of $1.2 billion, Yancopoulos is Regeneron’s chief scientific officer.
7. and 8. Thomas and Andreas Struengmann — With a net worth of $6.9 billion, the Struengmann twins sold their generic drug company Hexal to Novartis in 2005 and have other biotech investments.
9. Li Xiting — With a net worth of $12.6 billion, Xiting cofounded Mindray Medical International, China’s largest medical equipment producer.
The U.S. has been noteworthy for its extreme wealth and income inequality, and the richest have become even richer from pandemic profiteering, according to the Institute for Policy Studies:
“Between January 1, 2020 and April 10, 2020, 34 of the nation’s wealthiest 170 billionaires saw their wealth increase by tens of millions of dollars. Eight have seen their net worth surge by over $1 billion.
As of April 15, Jeff Bezos’s [Amazon’s founder] fortune had increased by an estimated $25 billion since January 1, 2020. This unprecedented wealth surge is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of Honduras, $23.9 billion in 2018.”
The wealth of the world’s top five billionaires — Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison — increased twice as much as the federal government paid in stimulus checks to more than 150 million Americans.
And as mentioned earlier, and noted by Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the NVIC,
Moderna’s stock price ballooned when it announced that its messenger RNA vaccine was ready for clinical trials,
and the company’s CEO became “a new billionaire overnight.”
Authors of The New England Journal of Medicine article, cited earlier, wrote that the Moderna vaccine candidate, named mRNA-1273, “induced anti–SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in all participants, and no trial-limiting safety concerns were identified.” The study team did note, however, “Solicited adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site.”
But, according to Just The News, adverse effects were not always that minor, especially after a second injection:
“Notably, every participant in the two larger-dose groups reported adverse reactions after their second injections. One study participant in the smallest-dose group, meanwhile, was removed due to having developed hives after the first round of injections.”
In addition to adverse effects, scientists are questioning how long immunity against the coronavirus, suggested by the presence of antibodies, will last.
According to Zero Hedge, immunity durability may be so short-lived, a COVID-19 vaccine “might need to be administered every year to offer a reliable level of protection.”
That will certainly be a windfall for the biotech billionaires. Zero Hedge writes:
“[A] study produced by researchers at King’s College London is showing recovered patients’ antibodies declined significantly within months of infection, raising the critical question of whether a vaccine could ever provide lasting protection.
Moderna’s vaccine candidate has shown the capacity to produce antibodies in test subjects, but it’s still unclear exactly how much protection this might provide.
University of Nottingham Emeritus Professor in Immunology Herb Sewell, who consulted on the study, said it appeared to show that antibodies to the virus disappeared more quickly than antibodies for MERS and other coronaviruses …
Several high profile studies have raised doubts about whether these antibodies are permanent, or effective, or not.”
Finally, the adverse effects of vaccines in general are so well known, even Bill Gates — who is arguably the world’s most passionate vaccine advocate — admits that as many as 700,000 could become victims of adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine. According to the German website Ken FM, in an interview with CNBC Gates said:
“… if we have … one in ten thousand side effects … that’s, you know, way more — 700,000 … people who will suffer from that. So, really understanding the safety at gigantic scale across all age ranges — you know — pregnant, male, female, undernourished and existing comorbidities, it’s very, very hard …
… that actual decision of‚ OK, let’s go and give this vaccine to the entire world, governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that can be decided on.”
Since that interview, several bloggers and media watchers have twisted Gates’ words as deaths, which has triggered another media “fact-checker,” APF Fact Check,
to call them out for it. So, if you do share this information, please note it’s side effects — which can include deaths, but also anything from a light fever to a very serious, but not life-threatening event — that Gates specifically mentioned.
In summary, as biotech billionaires rush in to profit from the COVID-19 pandemic, your privacy rights are being violated through tracking and contact tracing, and your right to refuse a vaccine may be in jeopardy if it is deemed for the public good. At the same time the very media that should be promoting your right to free speech and to question government’s decisions for your body is advocating for having those rights taken away.
Through the pursuit of an artificial vaccine, natural immunity to viruses like COVID-19 will not occur and future pandemics are assured. But that means mass vaccination will have to be repeated over and over again, which is good news for the pandemic profiteers. But is it good for you?
Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.
The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.
If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.