By Anna Von Reitz
By Anna Von Reitz
As detailed in “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth,” the Publicis Groupe, a global PR firm, appears to be at the center of a large network involving Big Tech, Big Pharma, the U.S. government and global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that work in tandem to further the globalist Great Reset agenda.
As you might expect, when you’re trying to implement a global regime change, you need to exercise very serious control over both the media and the public discourse. If you don’t, you might have a rebellion on your hands when people realize that what you’re doing is not in their best interest.
And, for that, you need some sort of central propaganda organization. Of course, you don’t want the manipulation to be glaringly obvious, so you set up a variety of NGOs, foundations, “public interest” organizations and “grassroots” groups to give the appearance of consensus between independents.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) is but one of many, many examples of groups that appear to serve as front groups for a particular agenda.1 You can be solidly assured that when an organization takes over a million dollars from Bill Gates their ability to produce high-quality investigative journalism is impaired and financially influenced..
I’ve written many articles over the years about attempts by various groups and organizations to smear my credibility and label this site as a fake news hub. The latest attempt comes from TBIJ, which recently asked for my rebuttal on a number of statements they were about to publish2 about me with regard to my stance on vaccines and COVID-19.
“Misinformation about these topics can hinder public health efforts to control the coronavirus pandemic and undermine the ability of individuals to make accurately informed decisions about vaccines,” TBIJ’s Jasper Jackson wrote in his email.
One of the statements slated for publication that I was asked to respond to is that the articles posted on my website and social media channels “often include misinformation about the pandemic, the coronavirus or vaccines, as well as misinformation on other topics.”
One such article, which was singled out, is “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions” which, according to Jackson, “includes the false claim that vaccines being distributed in the U.S. and elsewhere are ‘an experimental gene therapy that could prematurely kill large amounts of the population and disable exponentially more.'”
According to Jackson, there have also been “numerous fact checks articles” about my “publication of misinformation stretching back to the early 2000s.” His article will further claim that “The primary purpose of Mercola’s articles and social media activity are to drive sales from his various health businesses.”
This is a classic and time-honored strategy that is frequently used to discredit any source that disagrees with their agenda. Many may not recall that for the first three years after I started this site, I did not sell anything and subsidized the half a million dollars it cost me to run the site out of my medical practice.
Every content site relies on a source of revenue, either through subscription fees or advertising. Or, in the case of TBIJ, taking dirty money from the Gates Foundation who has an agenda when it comes to his investments in the pharmaceutical and GMO/chemical agriculture industry.
Then, as now, advertisers have a way of influencing the content, and I am free to report the truth without taking advertisers’ bottom lines into account. My content has expanded over the years and remains 100% free to the public.
TBIJ is funded by Bill Gates,3,4 a leading force within the technocratic takeover movement who doles out money to anything and anyone that will help further the globalist agenda, including media.5 As recently as November 2019, TBIJ was given a $1,068,169 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for an advocacy program related to “Global health and development public awareness and analysis.”6 Other TBIJ sponsors include:7
• The Google News Initiative, which sponsors fellowships at the TBIJ.8
• George Soros’ Open Society Foundation which, not at all surprisingly, funds projects involving “shadow wars and decision machines.”
• The Wellcome Trust,9 the largest charity in the U.K. that funds “innovative biomedical research.” It was formed in 1936 after the death of Sir Henry Wellcome, a pharmaceutical pioneer and progressive industrialist. Their board consists of present or former bankers, insurance executives and investment board members.
Wellcome also funds the Science Media Centre (SMC), a PR firm that specializes in reshaping public reality, manufacturing consent and manipulating beliefs and behaviors. Wellcome and SMC also have the shared goal of educating and training other media.
All of these — Gates, Google, Soros and Wellcome — are easily identified as parts of the technocratic globalist network. So, it’s not surprising to find TBIJ attempting to discredit and censor those critical of the globalist agenda which, of course, includes protecting and promoting the COVID-19 vaccine program.
After all, the COVID-19 vaccination program is bound to be the most profitable vaccine program in the history of medicine, seeing how the plan is to vaccinate 7+ billion people, and not just once or twice, but probably every year going forward.
And, as reported by Columbia Journalism Review,10 while fact checkers have slapped a “false” label on the claim that the Gates Foundation has financial investments in companies making COVID-19 vaccines and therapies, “the foundation’s website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVac.”
In his email, Jackson also asked me to comment on planned statements regarding warning letters sent to my business from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the FDA’s confirmation that a recall of my Organic Cocoa Cassava bars had occurred in 2016.
Why would TBIJ focus on the essentially irrelevant voluntary recall of organic coconut bars as a concern when the real issue they need to be exposing is their acceptance of over $1 million from Gates? Why? Because Gates has been fined well over $1 billion for serious regulatory breaches — $800,000 in 2004;11 $32 million in 2005; and $1.3 billion in 2008.12
As for my description of mRNA “vaccines” as gene therapy, any serious rational and objective assessment would never qualify this as a false claim.
Think of it in the most simple terms. mRNA are snippets of genetic code that carries instructions for cells to produce proteins. The definition of genetic is ‘relating to genes’ and genes contain instructional code that tell the body what proteins to make.
Therapy is the medical treatment of disease, so mRNA vaccines are very clearly gene therapy.
As noted by David Martin, Ph.D., (see video above), Moderna’s SEC filings specify and stress that its technology is a “gene therapy technology,” originally intended for cancer treatment. It’s mechanism of action also confirms it to be gene therapy. So, it’s gene therapy.
Furthermore, these products don’t meet the medical definition of what a vaccine actually is and does, so where’s the counterargument? According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,13 a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.” Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.”
In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity. The sole purpose of these products is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.
I challenge TBIJ to present evidence that these mRNA injections function in the same manner as conventional vaccines such that they meet the medical definition, and that they are not, in fact, gene therapies. Don’t just argue that I’m wrong. Prove me wrong.
The mRNA gene therapies currently being misleadingly marketed as “vaccines” admittedly turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.14
They are fast-tracked products released under emergency use authorization — animal trials were skipped and human trials aren’t even completed yet — and based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are, quite frankly, inevitable. This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:
The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”
Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn’t break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.
COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.15,16
Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.17 What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use across all ages and preexisting health conditions?
The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which calms inflammation.
The recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, could be very dangerous, according to Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, who sent a public letter18 to the FDA Commissioner detailing these risks.
Reports in the medical literature have also highlighted the risk of pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). For example, in “Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire? Due Diligence Warranted for ADE in COVID-19,” the authors explain:19
Similarly, “Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 Via Autoimmunity,” published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, warns that:21
We apparently don’t even know if antibody production is truly protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections, according to a December 11, 2020, paper22 in the journal Vaccine: X, which states:
Sadly, just as I accurately predicted, there’s no shortage of media stories reporting side effects in those receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, including sudden deaths of healthy individuals.23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41 And rest assured, the casualties will continue to mount.
One very serious side effect that has emerged is thrombocytopenia, a rare blood disorder that has been reported in at least 36 Americans shortly after COVID-19 vaccination.42,43 This is what led to the sudden death of a 56-year-old Miami Beach doctor. Symptoms emerged within three days of receiving the Pfizer vaccine. He died two weeks later.
Sure, mainstream media assure us that a link between the vaccine and this lethal condition has not been proven, but to dismiss lethal effects that occur within days in otherwise healthy individuals requires some serious suspension of disbelief.
There were no problems accepting that people who got a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and then died — having struggled with heart disease or cancer for years — actually died due to the infection. Something had to be done.
Now, healthy people are dying within hours or days after vaccination, and we’re to just shrug that off as random coincidence. We’re to believe they would have keeled over from the same problem even if they didn’t receive the gene therapy.
In a paper44 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen also warns there are troubling evidences suggesting the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
Based on this readily available data, I believe my projections that these gene therapies “could prematurely kill large amounts of the population and disable exponentially more” is materializing before our eyes. So, again, I challenge TBIJ to rebut, with actual data, all of those reports before they claim I’m peddling misinformation.
That there is a powerful network behind the current efforts to eradicate truth tellers is impossible to miss. The coordination alone — between politicians, Big Pharma, mainstream media, Big Tech, “philanthropic” foundations, NGOs and intelligence agencies — is evidence that this is no minor side project.
Even Congress45 and the Biden administration have reportedly reached out to social media companies, urging them to clamp down on “COVID-19 misinformation” before it goes viral.46
As noted by Glenn Greenwald in a February 20, 2021, substack article,47 “In their zeal for control over online speech, House Democrats are getting closer and closer to the constitutional line, if they have not already crossed it.”
I would argue they have indeed crossed the line, seeing how U.S. House Democrats from California — Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney — have gone so far as to demand a dozen cable, satellite and streaming TV companies to censor or remove Fox News, Newsmax and OANN, allegedly for the crime of rejecting “public health best practices.”
In his article48 on this rapid escalation of government calls for censorship, Greenwald states that “Democrats’ justification for silencing their adversaries online and in media — ‘They are spreading fake news and inciting extremism’ — is what despots everywhere say.”
“Since when is it the role of the U.S. Government to arbitrate and enforce precepts of ‘journalistic integrity’?” Greenwald asks.
“Unless you believe in the right of the government to regulate and control what the press says — a power which the First Amendment explicitly prohibits — how can anyone be comfortable with members of Congress arrogating unto themselves the power to dictate what media outlets are permitted to report and control how they discuss and analyze the news of the day?”
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has strongly denounced the Democrats’ actions, calling it a “marked departure from First Amendment norms,” adding that the demands are “a chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys … No government official has any business inquiring about the ‘moral principles’ that guide a private entity’s decision about what news to carry.”49
While there are probably several intertwining and overlapping incentives behind the relentless push to get these gene therapies into everyone on the planet — even if it includes shutting down any news networks that once in a blue moon has the courage to report on open questions surrounding these products and other pandemic measures — protecting profits is undoubtedly one of them.
As reported by The Defender,50 drug industry lobbyists spent nearly $306.23 million to influence federal lawmakers in 2020 alone. Drug companies also spend about $30 billion on marketing each year (per 2016 data), $6 billion of which pays to propagandize consumers with 5 million universally misleading ads.51 That’s nearly 13,700 ads every day of the year, or 571 ads per hour, 24/7.
Still, despite that massive brainwashing operation, the truth has an appeal all its own. It’s direct. It’s logical. It doesn’t require complicated cognitive gymnastics and 1984-style double-think to “get it.” Most importantly, it can stand on its own against attacks devoid of substantial, data-backed counterarguments — which is why I don’t lose sleep over baseless hit pieces from TBIJ and other jackals bearing similar stripes.
Do-not-resuscitate orders, or DNR orders, are medical orders that instruct heath care providers not to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event a person stops breathing or their heart stops beating.1 They’re typically set up in advance, prior to an emergency, after discussion with the patient and/or the patient’s family.
DNR status has been previously linked to severe illness, advanced age, poor disease prognosis and deteriorating health status with impending death,2 but during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigations suggest DNRs have been used improperly, including being assigned to people with learning disabilities without their knowledge or consent.
According to Edel Harris, chief executive at Mencap, a U.K. advocacy charity for people with learning disabilities, “Throughout the pandemic many people with a learning disability have faced shocking discrimination and obstacles to accessing health care, with inappropriate Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notices put on their files and cuts made to their social care support.”3
The Care Quality Commission (CQC), which regulates health and social care in England, is investigating the practice, but their preliminary report released in December 2020 suggests inappropriate DNACPRs may have caused avoidable deaths.4,5
March 30, 2020, during the early days of the pandemic, CQC issued a joint statement with the British Medical Association, Care Provider Alliance and Royal College of General Practitioners, issued to adult social care providers and general practitioners (GPs).6
They noted that during the pandemic, it was more important than ever to have personalized advanced plans of care in place, particularly for older people, those who are frail or those with serious health conditions — and that those plans be discussed with patients.
As long as the person has the mental capacity, “this advance care plan should always be discussed with them directly,” the statement noted, and in cases when this wasn’t possible family members or other appropriate individuals should be involved. As if foreseeing an inevitable problem, the statement made a point to highlight the need for individualized advance care planning decisions:7
“It remains essential that these decisions are made on an individual basis … It is unacceptable for advance care plans, with or without DNAR [do not attempt resuscitation] form completion to be applied to groups of people of any description. These decisions must continue to be made on an individual basis according to need.”
By October 2020, the U.K.’s Department of Health and Social Care had asked CQC to review how DNRs were being used during the pandemic.8
At the time, CQC said they had heard of cases where decisions were not made using a person-centered approach, and they intended to review advance care planning decisions made in hospitals, care homes and by GPs during the pandemic. While the final review is expected to be released in early 2021, interim findings were released in December 2020.9
CQC’s interim findings suggest that advance care decisions were made inappropriately during the pandemic due to a “combination of increasing pressures and rapidly developing guidance.” They noted:10
“Early findings are that at the beginning of the pandemic, a combination of unprecedented pressure on care providers and other issues may have led to decisions concerning DNACPR being incorrectly conflated with other clinical assessments around critical care.”
In one example, CQC noted that guidance intended to assess frailty as part of a wider clinical assessment may have been used as the sole basis for decisions. This mistake was reportedly corrected, with revised guidance released within five days; however, it’s possible that some people may still not be receiving proper care. According to the report:11
“DNACPR decisions and advance care plans should only ever take place with clear involvement of the individual, or an appropriate representative, and a clear understanding of what they would like to happen.
While there is no evidence to suggest that blanket approaches to DNACPR decisions are being used currently, people who use services and groups that represent them told CQC that early in the pandemic they or their loved ones received DNACPR decisions which were not based on their wishes and needs, and without their knowledge and consent. It is unacceptable for decisions to be applied to groups of people of any description.”
Mencap received reports in January 2021 that some people with learning disabilities had been told they would not be resuscitated if they became severely ill with COVID-19.12 People with disabilities in England had a 1.9 to 3.5 times greater risk of death from COVID-19 compared to people without disabilities, according to a report by the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics.13
Keri-Michèle Lodge, a learning disability consultant, told The Guardian, “The biggest factor associated with the increased rate of death from their analysis was living in care homes or residential settings.”14
Public Health England also found that people with learning disabilities were six times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population, and this rose to 30 times more likely among those with disabilities aged 18 to 34.15
Rosie Benneyworth, chief inspector of primary medical services and integrated care at CQC further noted that the pandemic risked magnifying inequalities in the care people receive and acknowledged that inappropriate DNRs may still exist:16
“It is unacceptable for clinical decisions — decisions which could dictate whether someone’s loved one gets the right care when they need it most — to be applied in a blanket approach to any group of people.
Sadly, in the experiences that people have generously shared with us there is very real concern that decisions were made which not only overlooked the wishes of the people they affected, but may have been made without their knowledge or consent.
… We have also highlighted the fact that it is possible in some cases that inappropriate DNACPRs remain in place – and made it clear that all care providers have a responsibility to assure themselves that any DNACPR decisions have been made appropriately, in discussion with the person and in line with legal requirements.”
In October 2020, Amnesty International also reported inappropriate use of DNRs by GPs, care homes, hospitals and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs).17 In their report, the nongovernmental organization said they had received reports from care home managers that CCGs had asked them to insert DNAR forms into residents’ files as a “blanket approach.”18
Family members also told Amnesty International that their relatives had been asked to sign DNAR forms without understanding them fully.
One document issued by CCGs to 35 GPs, seen by Amnesty International, told practices, “Search your clinical system for any care home patients who do not have a resuscitation order recorded (either ‘not for’ or ‘for’ resuscitation) and put appropriate orders in place” and “Ask the [care] home to check they have resuscitation orders on every resident.”
The document also gave instructions for GPs to prioritize patients who did not have a “do not convey to hospital” decision in place, and even included a script to facilitate such discussions, which discouraged hospitalization:19
“Frail elderly people do not respond to the sort of intensive treatment required for the lung complications of coronavirus and indeed the risk of hospital admission may be to exacerbate pain and suffering. We may therefore recommend that in the event of coronavirus infection, hospital admission is undesirable.”
In response to the document, 98 care homes were contacted, leading to distress, as in some cases care homes were told no residents over 75 would be admitted to a hospital. A senior local figure speaking to Amnesty International expressed his dismay:20
“Discussions on advanced care planning should be warm and natural conversations. This is not how they should be done. One care home with 26 residents had 16 residents sign DNARs in a 24-hour period. It was distressing for staff and residents … Care homes felt like they were being turned into hospices, and being asked to prepare to manage deaths instead of managing life.”
Assigning a DNR to a person with a learning disability or in any case without their knowledge can be the difference between life and death, including in the case of COVID-19.
Researchers from Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School investigated the influence of DNR status on mortality in hospital patients who died with COVID-19, revealing that people who died with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to have a DNR order on admission than those who recovered from the illness.21
COVID-19 patients with a DNR also had a higher mortality rate than COVID-19 patients without a DNR, with researchers noting, “The risk of death from COVID-19 was significantly influenced by the patients’ DNR status.” Separate research has also revealed that the way a DNR is interpreted can affect a person’s care. The researchers wrote:22
“While the definition of DNR might seem straightforward, its interpretation in clinical practice can be complicated. In this study, most of the nurses understood the meaning of DNR. Yet their interpretations often indicated clinical situations in which a DNR order was misaligned with the plan of care or was misinterpreted as replacing it.”
Confusion about the definition and implications is exactly what researchers found when they examined care based on a person’s DNR designation. Direct care nurses from a large urban hospital participated in an open-ended interview to gather information.23 When the data were analyzed, the researchers found varying interpretations on how to carry out DNR orders that resulted in “unintended consequences.”24
Since DNR orders and other advance directives may open other decisions to interpretation, affect patient care and outcomes and, as has recently been revealed during the pandemic, may be put into place without knowledge or consent, it’s important that you educate others and advocate for yourself or your loved one if hospitalization or placement in a care home occurs for any reason.
This may be especially true if you have a loved one with a disability, including a learning disability. Even during “normal” times, an estimated 1,200 people with a learning disability die avoidably under care of the National Health Service annually.25 During the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially in part due to inappropriate use of DNRs, these numbers may be even higher.
Link to original article http://www.paulstramer.net/2021/03/cowboy-ethics-and-frontier-justice.html
Download and print http://annavonreitz.com/cowboyethicsandfrontierjustice.pdf
Watch and comment on Rumble https://rumble.com/vecqu1-cowboy-ethics-and-frontier-justice-march-3-2021-by-anna-von-reitz.html
|(Natural News) In the rush to vaccinate every man, woman and child against a year-old coronavirus strain, sacrifices are being made. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is now reporting thirty-four cases of miscarriage and stillbirth associated with the experimental COVID-19 vaccinations. The initial guidelines warn pregnant women not to partake in these real-world…|
|(Natural News) Canada’s new Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) quarantine “rules” for travelers returning from outside its borders are making headlines, and not in a good way. Angry mobs are reportedly forming in the lobbies of hotels that have been turned into makeshift concentration camps where those entering from abroad are being forced to stay, on their…|
|(Natural News) Isaac Legareta, an officer who was fired from working at the Doña Ana County Detention Center in New Mexico for refusing a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine, is suing the county manager for imposing the illegal and unconstitutional vaccine mandate. The complaint addresses an illicit directive issued by Fernando Macias, the county manager in…|
|(Natural News) World Health Organization (WHO) investigators said it was extremely unlikely that the first cases of coronavirus identified in Wuhan in 2019 had entered the city through frozen or refrigerated goods. Frozen foods from the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan had tested positive for coronavirus, leading to a Chinese theory that the coronavirus was…|