|
by
A Midwestern Doctor
Many of you are understandably outraged at the CDC's recent unanimous decision to add the COVID-19 vaccines to the pediatric schedule.
The decision is completely indefensible, and will result in millions of children being forced to be vaccinated for no benefit and substantial risk.
For those who have any doubts this will happen, Tucker Carlson eloquently refuted those arguments:
In democratic republics, it should not be possible for unelected groups to forcefully dictate the lives of citizens without those policies being legalized by the legislative process.
Unfortunately, our bureaucracy has bypassed that process by allowing committees (whose members are appointed rather than being elected democratically) to craft "guidelines" (as this is the limit of their authority), and then have the rest of the government (and media) treat those guidelines as law.
Unfortunately, the members of these committees tend to be individuals who have been bribed and inevitably arrive at conclusions that support their sponsors.
Two excellent recent examples were the NIH panel (directly appointed by Fauci) recommending remdesivir while prohibiting ivermectin while having extensive financial ties to remdesivir's manufacture, and that of the committee which made the highly questionable guideline for almost everyone to take statins having extensive financial ties to the statin manufacturers.
Although guidelines should only be treated as advice rather than law (this in fact was the decision of a federal judge), there has instead been a continual push to strengthen the guidelines and force ones that border upon absurdity onto the American people.
In California for example, the state chosen to pioneer vaccine mandates for our nation, countless parents have been forced to flee the state so their children can remain in school, and parents who are not financially advantaged have been forced to make many very difficult decisions because of these mandates (many of these stories are quite tragic).
Recently this guideline-based governance ratcheted up another notch as California passed a law that stated anyone physician who provides advice to a patient that conflicts with a CDC guideline is guilty of professional misconduct.
As you can imagine, this sets a variety of concerning precedents, such as how "advisement that does not carry the weight of law" can be allowed to supersede our sacred constitutional freedoms that have been enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and previously have been consistently upheld by our courts
Throughout its history, the CDC and its advisory committee the ACIP, have consistently voted to approve each vaccine presented before them, regardless of the evidence against doing so (and as Steve Kirsch recently proved, its leadership has willfully disregarded that evidence).
This raises an obvious question:
When examining complex questions, one helpful strategy, Occam's Razor, is to first consider the simplest explanation and see if it fits relatively well to addressing the question at hand.
In many areas of medicine (e.g. journal publications, research findings, and medical practices chosen by physicians or hospitals), there is a tendency to adhere to the financial interests of the involved parties.
Not surprisingly, this is also the behavior guideline committees typically follow so the question naturally becomes:
This is a critically important question to consider because, despite a history of egregious scandals at the CDC that started long before COVID-19, for many Americans, if one so much as questions a CDC policy, they are forever more a pseudoscientific quack.
As Marcia Angell MD, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine so eloquently stated:
The CDC FoundationTypically in Democracies, "bribery" is illegal, but as the country becomes more and more corrupt, backdoor after backdoor is made that effectively legalizes the bribery.
One of the best descriptions I have ever seen of this corrosive process is shown in this video that was made almost a decade ago:
In the case of the CDC, they have come up with a rather simple solution to legalizing corruption.
If you view their website, you will frequently encounter this comforting disclaimer:
To allow widespread corruption while simultaneously maintaining the veracity of this statement, there are two simple loopholes that can be utilized:
In 1983, Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts,
In 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention so that CDC could obtain additional funding for its work, or put differently create a third party to pass money along to the CDC.
Two years later, it was incorporated to,
Comically enough, many other agencies within the federal
government, including
the CIA and the NIH, also have their
own foundations that were also created by congress to allow them to
access corporate
Not surprisingly, many of the directors of these foundations like their peers in government, often follow a revolving door and end up in high-paying executive roles at major pharmaceutical companies after leading these foundations.
The CDC Foundation has been accused of egregious conduct since its inception and has received nearly 1 billion dollars from corporate "donors" (criticisms include a scathing editorial in one of the world's top medical journals).
Some of the best examples of this corruption are documented within this 2019 letter to the CDC from a group of non-profit watchdog groups (I would highly advise reading the entire letter).
To quote a few of them:
The next example illustrates how the CDC's corruption shapes the guidelines that are forced upon the population:
CDC's dealings with corporate interests have also drawn scrutiny and concern from Congress:
I cannot help but notice how much this resembles of a scene from this remarkably prescient movie:
All of of this in turn should raise a very obvious question... Who Funds The CDC Foundation?
Through the work of watchdogs like the authors of the letter above, it is possible to discern who many of the primary funders of the CDC foundation are.
Fortunately, the CDC also openly discloses their sponsors.
Upon reviewing the largest donors, we find many familiar faces:
Unfortunately, the CDC also does its best to obfuscate its funding by only stating if they receive more or less than 50,000 from each sponsor (this is somewhat analogous to how processed food manufacturers do their best to hide information from nutrition labels).
For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is simply stated as a party that donated over 50,000 dollars.
Fortunately, unlike many of the sponsors, the Gates Foundation does disclose the grants they have given the CDC, which for reference totaled to:
Thus, the CDC's disclosures were accurate since each of these figures was "50,000 and above," although I would argue they were quite misleading, as these figures clearly demonstrate sufficient bribery to override any pre-existing scientific integrity at the agency.
Following publication of this article, I uncovered where the more detailed summaries of the CDC foundation's outside funding could be found (e.g. FY2018, FY2019, FY2020, FY2021).
Although the Gates Foundation was one of their largest donors, there were many other large contributors
(Note: as many grants ran through multiple fiscal years, they were tabulated for the first year they went into effect).
Notes:
Recognizing these concerning trends, employees of the CDC in 2016 anonymously complained to their leadership regarding the agency's corruption:
It is also important to consider that Congress's main watchdog, the GAO recently investigated this issue in agencies including the CDC and FDA.
The GAO repeatedly found that political interference occurred that potentially resulted in the alteration or suppression of scientific findings like those described by the anonymous CDC employees above.
However, rather than address this issue, no mechanisms were available for whistleblowers in any of the agencies to report incidents of corruption and the leadership of each agency appeared to deny any problems were occurring.
Direct Vaccine SalesMany of you are aware of the feud between Moderna and the NIH over who owns the patent to their vaccine.
To quote Nature:
Likewise, many parts of the federal government are financially incentivized to sell vaccinations and other pharmaceuticals as they both own patents on the pharmaceutical products and are paid by their manufacturers for the process of approving them.
However, while these conflicts of interest are widespread (an excellent summary of which can be found here), I am less sure exactly how much money is ultimately made, as many tricks are available to hide that money (such as paying off regulators in the private sector after they leave the government).
Fact-checkers for example acknowledge these conflicts of interest exist, but like everyone else insist their effects are minimal:
Many members of ACIP and the CDC have owned patents on the vaccines they voted to mandate upon the public.
Despite this, they always claim these massive financial conflicts of interest they held have not clouded their judgment on which vaccines they approved (which is technically true since they almost always approve every vaccine that comes their way).
Providing royalty payments to bureaucrats responsible for pharmaceutical approvals is a slippery slope that consistently incentives everyone within the federal bureaucracy to push through dangerous and ineffective products.
For example in the year 2000, following the Rotavirus vaccine debacle, a Congressional investigation found:
ConclusionOddly enough, although I expect the members of the CDC's panels who voted for this mandate will each experience significant repercussions for their actions in the future, I do not blame the panelists for this decision, as their approval appears to be a mere formality.
In the one case I know of where ACIP voted against approving a vaccine (specifically COVID-19 boosters for the workplace), CDC director Rochelle Walensky (who is directly accountable to the CDC's sponsors), in a "highly unusual move" overrode ACIP and nonetheless approved it.
Many outside observers suspect this approval was done to shield the vaccine manufacturers from the inevitable liability they were facing from the explosion of severe injuries from the vaccines and mounting evidence the vaccines were fraudulently marketed (e.g. they are not effective at preventing COVID-19 or transmission of the disease).
By being added to the schedule, this affords the COVID-19 manufacturers the absurd protection that was enshrined by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act a law (brokered by Fauci) that removed the ability of those harmed by vaccines to sue vaccine manufacturers for their injuries (and for parents of vaccine injured children to receive any support or compensation for many vaccine complications).
By removing all liability for vaccine manufacturers, any incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to produce safe vaccines was eliminated, and a lucrative vaccine market was created.
Following the passage of this act, a glut of unnecessary vaccines were developed, rubber-stamped by ACIP and the CDC, forced onto our children, and shortly after, an explosion of chronic disease and disability occurred.
Not surprisingly, the agencies of the government responsible for discovering the cause of this modern-day epidemic (the CDC and Fauci's NIAID) after decades of research, are still no closer to determining what caused it.
Although many (especially those who have already experienced what happened in California) are horrified by this turn of events, I believe this decision has presented a remarkable opportunity.
The extreme consequences of this decision, the blatant absurdity of it, and the public attention it will inevitably bring as it injures our children may finally bring widespread attention to the corruption within the CDC and the highly questionable approvals of many previous vaccines they have pushed onto the market.
In short, I am hopeful we may, at last, be close to rectifying the disastrous consequences of the 1986 Vaccine Act.
Although I was unable to obtain financial records for the current ACIP members (who in a recent JAMA editorial on the "ethical justifications" for COVID-19 vaccination all denied having any conflicts of interest), like the CDC, the ACIP has been known to have been plagued with significant financial conflicts of interests and highly questionable ties to the biosecurity state since its inception (consider this example with a current member).
In the most recent investigation I know of that specifically examined these financial entanglements, I discovered that even as recently as 2019, conflicts of interest were still present throughout its membership:
I mention all this because one of the my favorite quotes is "Don't sell your soul to the eye on the back of the dollar bill," and it is my sincere hope those in positions of power will stop choosing to make money over doing the right thing.
Unfortunately, throughout human
history, human beings have been well known to do the opposite.
At one point, Steiner was asked what was needed for the human species to evolve, and he stipulated three critical conditions must be met.
Postscript:
After completing this article, I found out about Pfizer's announcement which also followed ACIP putting their vaccine on the children immunization schedule.
I would say this speaks for itself...
|
