By Anna Von Reitz
By Anna Von Reitz
By Anna Von Reitz
Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Upon recovery, you’re typically immune to that infectious agent. In the case of COVID-19, however, public health officials have been reluctant to suggest that those who have recovered are now immune — and therefore have no need for a COVID-19 vaccine.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is among those who had COVID-19 and recovered. As a scientist, he looked into whether he should still get a COVID-19 vaccine, uncovering research that showed vaccination offered no benefit to those who have previously been infected. “The controversy began,” according to Sharyl Attkisson’s Full Measure report, “when Massie noticed the CDC was claiming the exact opposite.”1
In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.2
But according to Massie, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”3 In France, the health body la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not recommend routinely vaccinating those who have already recovered from COVID-19, stating:4
“At this stage, there is no need to systematically vaccinate people who have already developed a symptomatic form of Covid-19 unless they wish to do so following a decision shared with the doctor and within a minimum period of time. 3 months from the onset of symptoms.”
Yet, the CDC suggests everyone who’s had COVID-19 should still get vaccinated: “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that reinfection with COVID-19 is possible, vaccine should be offered to you regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 infection.”5
When Massie realized that vaccination didn’t change the risk of infection among people who’ve had COVID-19, he was alarmed and contacted the CDC directly, recording his calls. “It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial.”6
Massie first spoke with Dr. Amanda Cohn, the lead for the vaccine planning unit of the CDC’s COVID-19 response.7 On December 16, she told Massie, “People who have had disease, given that there’s limited doses right now, we’re, we are suggesting that those people wait.”8
Cohn also thanked Massie for bringing it to her attention that their claim that vaccines are effective in people who’ve previously had COVID-19 is a mistake, and implied that it would be fixed. Cohn said:9
“I think we read that thing so many times that when, you know, we just skipped right over it. We know we can’t be perfect, we know we’re gonna miss things. You will forever after be known in our office as ‘Eagle-Eyed Man.’”
Two days later, however, Cohn told medical professionals in an online session that people with prior infection are likely to benefit from vaccination. A month after that, the false information remained on the CDC’s website, Massie, said, prompting another call.
This time, Massie spoke with the CDC’s Washington, D.C., director Anstice Brand, who talked in circles. “So I called them up on Tuesday, as soon as I could, to ask them why it hadn’t been fixed,” Massie told Attkisson. “And it was like, I was starting all over with the same people. And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently.”10
Massie also spoke with CDC scientist Dr. Sara Oliver, who was part of the online session that gave out misinformation to medical professionals and is also an author of the flawed CDC report. He said, “There was an error and I noticed you are an author on it and I wondered if I could get your help in getting this error corrected. You can’t say it’s efficacious for people with prior infection. That’s an absolutely untrue sentence.”
Oliver responded, “Yeah, I mean, we’re — we’re still recommending that individuals who have prior infection receive the vaccine.” When he pushed further, she said, “Okay. I — I can, um, I can talk with MMWR, and with Dr. Cohn and see, if, if we can tweak that language a little bit.”11
It wasn’t until Massie’s final call with the CDC, to deputy director Anne Schuchat, that it was acknowledged that a correction was necessary. “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay,” Schuchat said. January 29, 2021, the CDC did finally issue a correction, which reads:12
“Consistent high efficacy (?92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Instead of fixing the error, Massie believes the wording still misleadingly suggests vaccination is effective for those previously infected.
He told Attkisson, “[I]nstead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So, at that point, right now I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials, for those who have already had the coronavirus.” Full Measure asked Oliver, Cohn and the CDC for interviews, but they declined the request.13
Additional research into vaccination of individuals who already had COVID-19 revealed that the antibody response to the first vaccine dose is equal to or exceeds titers from those who were not previously infected but received two doses.
“Changing the policy to give these individuals only one dose of vaccine would not negatively impact on their antibody titers, spare them from unnecessary pain and free up many urgently needed vaccine doses,” researchers wrote in a preprint study.14 Side effects, including fatigue, headaches, fever, muscle and joint pain and chills, were also more common among those who had been infected before.15
A second study also suggested that the antibody response to a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine among health care workers previously infected was comparable to that among people who hadn’t been previously infected and received two doses.16 They concluded that those who have already had COVID-19 are not a “priority” for vaccination:
“In times of vaccine shortage, and until correlates of protection are identified, our findings preliminarily suggest the following strategy as more evidence-based: a) a single dose of vaccine for patients already having had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19; and b) patients who have had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 can be placed lower on the vaccination priority list.”
If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden:17
“If you have had COVID-19, you have some protection against reinfection. This means that you are less likely to become infected and seriously ill, and less likely to infect others if you are exposed to the virus again.
Over time, the protection that you get after an infection wanes and there is an increased risk of getting infected again. At present, we estimate that the protection after having had COVID-19 lasts at least six months from the time of infection.”
As for the vaccine, Dr. Meryl Nass suggests the protection it provides will be inferior to that acquired via natural infection:
“No one knows how long immunity lasts, if in fact the vaccines do provide some degree of immunity. (Should it be called immunity if you can still catch and spread the virus?)
For every known vaccine, the immunity it provides is less robust and long-lasting than the immunity obtained from having had the infection. People who have had COVID really have no business getting vaccinated — they get all the risk and none of the benefit. It is said that Israelis who had COVID are not being vaccinated.”18
Many have wondered if vaccination would even be necessary if widespread herd immunity were achieved naturally. Your immune system isn’t designed to get vaccines. It’s designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. But apparently, according to WHO, that’s no longer the case.
In June 2020, WHO’s definition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said, courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback machine:19
“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
In October 2020, here’s their updated definition of herd immunity, which is now “a concept used for vaccination”:20
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.”
This perversion of science implies that the only way to achieve herd immunity is via vaccination, which is blatantly untrue. The startling implications for society, however, is that by putting out this false information, they’re attempting to change your perception of what’s true and not true, leaving people believing that they must artificially manipulate their immune systems as the only way to stay safe from infectious disease.
The fact is the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy, of which the effectiveness and safety are far from proven.
Any strategy that successfully manipulates public opinion is bound to be repeated, and we can now clearly see how the tobacco industry’s playbook is being used to shape the public narrative about COVID-19 and the projected post-COVID era.
In 2011, after many years of raising awareness regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and industrial agriculture, we decided we needed a new game plan. Educating people through our newsletter was great, but we realized the best way to expose Monsanto — a leading GMO advocate and patented seed owner at the time — was to get them to engage directly and ensure national attention.
To that end, Mercola.com funded the signature gathering in California that initiated Proposition 37, the right to know what’s in your food by ensuring proper GMO labeling. We spent more than $1 million for the Prop 37 initiative, plus several million dollars more for GMO labeling initiatives in other U.S. states in the following years.
This initiative forced Monsanto to engage with the public directly to defend their toxic products and dangerous business practices, all while receiving national coverage in the process.
Monsanto spent tens of millions of dollars attacking anyone in their way, but they did so indirectly, just like the tobacco industry did before them. This is the core take-home of what I’m about to describe next.
They used a public relations team to do most of their dirty work — paying scientists and academics to voice their “independent opinions,” influencing scientific journals, and getting journalists and editorial boards to write favorable and influential pieces to help them maintain their lies and influence minds.
Still, while the spending of tens of millions of dollars to influence voters resulted in a narrow defeat of Prop 37, the new, widespread awareness of GMOs, pesticides and industrial agriculture eventually led to Monsanto’s demise.
In 2013, in a last-ditch effort to salvage its tarnished image, Monsanto hired the PR firm Ketchum. As noted in a HuffPost article by Paul Thacker,1 “Monsanto hit reboot with Ketchum,” which “created a campaign called GMO Answers, and used social media and third-party scientists to offer a counter narrative to allay concern about Monsanto’s products.”
The GMO Answers’ website is set up to allow professors at public universities answer GMO questions from the public — supposedly without remuneration from the industry. But over the years, evidence emerged showing that these academics are far from independent, and often end up getting paid for their contributions via hidden means, such as unrestricted grants.
University of Florida professor Kevin Folta is one prominent example described in my 2016 article “Scientific American — Another Monsanto Bedfellow.” In that article, I also review how GMO Answers co-sponsored a panel discussion about GMOs in March that year with the media and partnerships division of Scientific American.
At the time, Jeremy Abatte, vice president and publisher of Scientific American, insisted the event was not a Ketchum event but a Scientific American event. Few bought his reasoning though, and many ended up filing Scientific American into the chemical biotech shill category.
Having purchased Monsanto at the end of 2016, Bayer continued the strategy to rely on PR firms for public acceptance. In the article2 “Bayer’s Shady PR Firms: Fleishmanhillard, Ketchum, FTI Consulting,” U.S. Right to Know reviews the many deception scandals involving these firms. A key discovery was evidence showing “there are objective strategies to silence strong voices.”
After investigating the strategies used by Monsanto and Bayer, we can now see that the same playbook is being used by Big Tech and Big Pharma to shape the public narratives about COVID-19 and the Great Reset. Again, a central facet of these campaigns is to silence critics, in particular those with large online followings, including yours truly.
I have been publicly labeled a “national security threat” to the U.K. by Imran Ahmed, a member of the Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force under the British government’s Commission for Countering Extremism and the chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).
According to Ahmed, I and others who question the safety and necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine may be prone to violent extremism. This defamatory statement clearly has no basis in reality whatsoever. Rather, it’s part of the propaganda aimed at destroying the opposition — in this case the opposition to the technocrats driving the Great Reset agenda, which spans across social, economic and health related sectors.
As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center, which was also on the CCDH list of national security threats:3
“The anonymously funded CCDH also has an office in Washington, D.C. and the defamatory publicity campaign created in December 2020 was designed to not only discredit NVIC’s four-decade public record of working within the U.S. democratic system to secure vaccine safety and informed consent protections in public health policies and laws, but to destroy our small charity.”
Public deception is now being carried out at a mass scale, and the whole thing appears to be led and organized by another major PR firm, this time the Publicis Groupe, self-described as “one of the world’s largest communications groups,”4 which represents major companies within the technology, pharmaceutical and banking industries.
These companies, in turn, have various partnerships with the U.S. government and global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Publicis itself is also a partner of the World Economic Forum,5 which is leading the call for a “reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.6 As you will see, Publicis’ fingerprints can be found throughout the net of censorship and misdirection that is now being cast across the digital landscape.
The Publicis Groupe has manipulated what people think about commercial products for nearly a century. Over that century, they have bought or partnered with targeted advertising avenues, beginning with newspapers, followed by radio, TV, cinema and the internet. More recently, they’ve branched into Big Data acquisitions and artificial intelligence platforms.
To understand the power PR companies such as Publicis have today, you need to understand the role of the free press. While pro-industry advertising worked well for decades, there was still the irksome problem of the Fourth Estate, a term that refers to the press.
The problem for industry was that professional investigative journalists working for magazines, newspapers and broadcast outlets would write in-depth exposés, outing the truth behind deceptive advertising and countering industry propaganda with science, statistics and other documented facts — and when a free press with honest reporting based on verifiable facts actually does its job, ineffective or toxic products are driven off the market.
The answer that industry came up with in the late 20th century to combat truth in journalism was, pure and simple, to control the Fourth Estate with advertising dollars. News organizations will simply not run reports that might harm the bottom line of its advertisers.
By further partnering with the “big guns” of media — such as the Paley Center for Media — Publicis and its industry clients have been able to influence and control the press to restrict, indeed virtually eliminate, your ability to get the truth on many important issues.
To start off this sprawling web of industry connections surrounding Publicis, let’s look at its connections to the self-appointed internet watchdog NewsGuard. NewsGuard rates websites on criteria of “credibility” and “transparency,” ostensibly to guide viewers to the most reliable sources of news and information.
In reality, however, NewsGuard ends up acting as a gate keeper with a mission to barricade unpopular truth and differences of opinion behind closed gates. Its clearly biased ranking system easily dissuades people from perusing information from low-rated sites, mine included.
NewsGuard received a large chunk of its startup capital from Publicis. NewsGuard also has ties to The Paley Center for Media, mentioned earlier. For clarification, The Paley Center is composed of every major media in the world, including Microsoft, AOL, CBS, Fox and Tribune Media. One of its activities is to sponsor an annual global forum for industry leaders.7
NewsGuard is housed in The Paley Center in New York City. In November 2015, Publicis’ chairman of North America, Susan Gianinno, joined The Paley Center’s board of trustees.8
Leo Hindery,9,10 a former business partner of the co-CEOs of NewsGuard, Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, is also a former trustee and director of The Paley Center. Taken together, NewsGuard has fairly influential connections to The Paley Center besides being a tenant in their building.
As mentioned, Publicis represents most of the major pharmaceutical companies in the world, and since so much of its revenue comes from the drug industry, it’s not far-fetched to assume Publicis might influence NewsGuard’s ratings of drug industry competitors, such as alternative health sites.
Next, let’s add a layer of Big Tech into the mix. Publicis, which represents Big Pharma, not only has the ability to influence the public through NewsGuard, but it’s also a Google partner,11,12 which allows it even greater ability to bury undesirable views that might hurt its clientele.
NewsGuard is also partnered with Microsoft, initially through Microsoft’s Defending Democracy Program.13 Through an expanded partnership announced in 2020, Microsoft Edge users gained access to NewsGuard for free, and Microsoft Bing gained access to NewsGuard’s data.14
Expanding the web further onto government and NGO territory, we find that NewsGuard is also connected to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Department of Defense and the World Health Organization. All three are listed as NewsGuard partners.15 NewsGuard is also partnered with:16
To summarize, the web around Publicis now includes international drug companies, NewsGuard, Google, Microsoft, the U.S. State Department and DoD, the WHO and the World Economic Forum. Mind you, this is not a comprehensive review of links. It’s merely a sampling of entities to give you an idea of the breadth of these connections, which when taken together explain how certain views can be so effectively erased.
But we’re not done yet. NewsGuard’s health-related service called HealthGuard17 is also partnered with WebMD, Medscape and the CCDH — the progressive cancel-culture leader18 with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as national security threats.
In 2017, WebMD was acquired by Internet Brands, a company under the global investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) umbrella. KKR also owns several other health-related internet brands. Since WebMD owned Medscape, it too now belongs to the KKR Internet Brands as well.
Together, HealthGuard, CCDH, WebMD and Medscape have launched a public service campaign called VaxFacts. The goal of the campaign is to “provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines,” WebMD reports.19
In tandem with that campaign, Google is funding fact-checking organizations to the tune of $3 million, with the aim of countering “vaccine misinformation,” and NewsGuard maintains a “Coronavirus Misinformation Tracking Center” that includes a “Top COVID-19 Vaccine Myths Tracker.”20
WebMD dominates health searches done through Google and shares user information with Google’s advertising arm and other third-party firms — a practice that is illegal in Europe.
What this means is DoubleClick, Google’s ad service, knows which prescriptions you’ve searched for on the site, thus providing you with personalized drug ads, and Facebook knows what you’ve searched for in WebMD’s symptom checker, as well as any medical diagnoses you received. I reviewed these findings in “WebMD and Healthline exposed Violating Your Privacy.”
Since most of its revenue comes from advertising, WebMD is far from an independent source of well-researched health news. For example, it has been caught shilling for Monsanto, publishing industry-friendly “articles” that are really paid advertisements known in the media world as advertorials.
Ten years ago, WebMD was also caught publishing a fake online depression screening test. In actuality, it was an advertising trick for the antidepressant Cymbalta, and there was no way for test takers to get a clean bill of mental health.
So, to recap, we find connections between the drug industry, NewsGuard/HealthGuard, educational institutions, Big Tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Bing, the U.S. State Department and DoD, global technocratic institutions like the WHO, national and global NGOs like the CCDH and the World Economic Forum, and dominating health websites like WebMD and Medscape.
Again, this is far from an exhaustive investigation of these kinds of connections. It’s merely a small sampling of readily obvious relationships. Toward the center of this web is the Publicis Groupe, the clients of which include major drug companies, Big Tech companies and financial institutions in more than 100 countries.21
By the way, Publicis also began investing in artificial intelligence technology in 201722 and partnered with Microsoft in 2018 to develop a global AI platform.23 It also purchased the data firm Epsilon in 2019,24 thereby establishing ownership of first-party data — a crucially valuable resource when it comes to the use of AI.
As detailed on its website, the firm’s expertise is concentrated within four main activities: communication, media, data and technology (including AI services), and all clients have access to its expertise in all of these areas.
While it’s easy to dismiss Publicis as just another ad agency, I believe it would be foolish to underestimate its power to organize the kind of coordination required to shut down vaccine concerns, anti-lockdown proponents and people trying to educate their fellow man about the dangers of the Great Reset, which is being brought forth as a “necessary” post-COVID step.
While these things may seem unrelated, they’re really not. As mentioned, the Great Reset involves everything — including health, education, government, economics, redistribution of wealth, business practices, environmental “protections” and much more.
Everything we know is set to change, and those who disagree with the mainstream narrative are troublemakers that must be silenced, lest the plan get pushed off-track by an unwilling public.
The answer to this dilemma is transparency. We must expose the machinations that allow this agenda to be pushed forward. Part of that exposure is looking at the role of big PR companies like Publicis, which helps influence the public mind so that the technocrats can maintain their lies until it’s too late to do anything about it.
Remember we DEFEATED Monsanto and we will defeat this threat to our freedom too. We simply allowed the public to learn the real truth about the issues, and that triggered Monsanto’s collapse.
I am currently working with some of the brightest minds in the tech space —cybersecurity experts and billionaire philanthropists who are very well networked. These individuals are committed to preserving your personal freedoms and liberties. We are seeking to involve a massive redo of the entire internet that will not allow tech monopolies the ability to censor the truth because it happens to conflict with their advertisers.
There has been an increasing call for the decentralization of the Internet as expressed in this article on Coin Telegraph last week. This would mean that rather than web sites being hosted on centralized servers in one location their content would be stored and served from thousands if not millions of computers all over the world making it virtually impossible to censor or shut down.
We are seeking to implement a strategy that Tim Berners-Lee is proposing. For those of you who don’t know, Berners-Lee is the person that gave us the world wide web graphical interface of the internet, and he didn’t take a penny for it. Had he licensed this technology, he surely would be the richest person in the world today.
You can read more about Berners-Lee’s plan in this February 5, 2021, article in The Conversation,25 but essentially in involves data sovereignty, giving you control over your data and privacy. So, what can you do?
Please understand you play a VERY important, if not critical role in this process. The first part of the strategy is to repeat what we did with Monsanto and expose their plans. So, if you have any interest in preserving your freedoms, I strongly encourage you to share this article and my video with everyone you know so people can start to understand how they are being manipulated. This will effectively “immunize” them against the propaganda.
Secondly, encourage your friends and family to subscribe to the newsletter so you can be updated on the next steps that will be necessary to defeat these tech monopolies tyrannical attempts at control.
|(Natural News) Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered a 60-day stand-down of the military to root out anyone remaining who supported the Jan. 6 protest at the United States Capitol. Austin reportedly held a meeting last Wednesday with the service secretaries and Joint Chiefs to address their concerns about conservatives in the military and what…|
|(Natural News) Prior to the Biden regime, the U.S. government had 17 bonafide intelligence agencies spread across the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military and the Intelligence Community. But now, it looks like we can add an 18th agency: Bank of America. In recent days, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson reported exclusively…|
|(Natural News) The United States Military is about to get a massive metal printing machine that will allow for gear, vehicle parts, and even weapons to be 3D printed on the fly. 3D Systems was awarded $15 million back in 2019 to develop the “World’s Largest, Fastest Powder Metal 3D Printer.” The technology includes a…|
|(Natural News) A scholar of international relations in Beijing warned that if the relationship between China and the United States is not immediately stabilized, “there will be war.” “It cannot be taken for granted and fantasized that conflict will never erupt between [the U.S. and China],” said Shi Yinhong a professor at the Renmin University of China’s Institute of…|
|(Natural News) On Jan. 23, a protest by residents in Chengdu, the capital of the southwestern Chinese province of Sichuan was violently dispersed by police. According to a report by the Chinese-language version The Epoch Times, residents of the Shuangliu District of Chengdu had gathered to protest the continued construction of the sewage plant that was being built around 200…|