Jabbed

The story of vaccines is the story of corruption, deception, and conflicts of interest, CDC for short, and the multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry lies at the heart of the evil. The government, medical establishment, and corporate-owned media all act out the roles assigned to them by Big Pharma. In exchange, they receive money, influence, power, and control from the industry. Elite members with multiple ties to industry meet behind closed doors to create and implement strategies to increase their profit and power. These people form what will be referred to as “the insiders.” When the doors are opened to the public, they present profit-producing plans and policies under the guise of public health to everyone else—“the outsiders”—including public health officials, medical professionals, and media. Vaccine believers and sociopaths exist in both the insiders and the outsiders groups. As stated in the introduction, both believers and sociopaths can and do commit sociopathic acts. Believers commit such acts with the belief that they are serving the public. Examples include advancing mandatory vaccination legislation, removing children from vaccine informed parents, vaccinating sick or otherwise immunocompromised individuals, or giving multiple vaccinations at once. Sociopaths commit the same or other acts with no illusion of noble intent.

In December 2002, the influence of Eli Lilly over government policy made the news. US citizens were more than willing to give up their constitutional rights with the passage of the Homeland Security Act that created the Homeland Security Department, but when an unidentified person slipped in a rider that would immunize Eli Lilly from hundreds of pending lawsuits filed by parents of children injured by Eli Lilly’s thimerosal in vaccines, the public was outraged. House Majority Leader Dick Armey finally fessed up to adding the rider. Representative Dan Burton, grandfather of an autistic grandson, asked Armey, “Who told you to put it in?” Armey replied, “ . . . they asked me to do it at the White House . . .” Some surmised that “the outgoing majority leader [was] the perfect fall guy to take the heat and shield the White House from embarrassment.” According to the New York Times, “It’s a claim both the White House and Armey deny.”⁴

The claim, however, is likely true. In 2005, activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., published an article in Salon titled “Deadly Immunity.” Among other things, Kennedy pins the deed and the motive on

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, [and] has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government’s vaccine-related documents—including the Simpsonwood transcripts—and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the “Eli Lilly Protection Act” into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism.⁵

Numerous news outlets carried the mysterious and dramatic Lilly rider story. A New York Times Opinion piece expressed indignation against the government officials who would exploit the public for private gain: “The politicians with their hands out and the fat cats with plenty of green to spread around have carried the day. Nothing is too serious to exploit, not even the defense of the homeland during a time of terror.”⁶

In a rare admission of vaccine risk, federal officials said they were “not recommending everyone get the shot, made from live vaccinia that causes side effects ranging from a fever and rash to brain swelling and, rarely, death.”⁸ In addition, “Several of Bush’s health advisers said they did not know how the president arrived at the notion of providing unlicensed vaccine to those Americans who ‘insist’ upon being inoculated.”⁹ Considering the Bush family’s two-generation love affair with vaccine industry movers and shakers, it appears entirely plausible that both the Eli Lilly rider and the smallpox vaccine farce had far more to do with protecting industry profits than protecting American troops and citizens.

Parent activists, already angry at the role the government played in injuring their children, “mounted a letter writing campaign, and chastised Senator Frist and the Republican leadership in an advertisement in the Congressional newspaper Roll Call, Congress, in a bi-partisan vote, repealed the provision in 2003.”¹⁰

During her two decades at The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell had a front-row seat on the growing corruption of the pharmaceutical industry. Angell summed up the relationship between Pharma and government and the impact of that relationship on American consumers in the introduction to her book The Truth About Drug Companies:

Drug companies have the largest lobby in Washington, and they give copiously to political campaigns. Legislators are now so beholden to the pharmaceutical industry that it will be . . . difficult to break its lock on them. . . .

The fact is that this industry is taking us for a ride, and there will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it happen.¹¹

According to CalWatchdog, an investigative news service focused on government transparency, California Assemblyman Henry Perea provides a good example of a system based on political payback. In exchange for favorable legislation, Perea received “tens of thousands of dollars in luxury goods, entertainment and travel . . .” to several locations including Italy, Chile, Israel, Central America, and Maui.¹³

As far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned, Perea’s a cheap trick. The golden boy of the Golden State is Senator Richard Pan, the pediatrician who lined his campaign pockets with more than $95,000 from Big Pharma.¹⁴ Credited with the deceitful passage of SB 277, Pan has proven to be a valuable asset to the industry and a dangerous enemy to truth and freedom. He also proved to be a coward when Dr. Andrew Wakefield and associates attempted to meet with Pan in the California State Capitol on May 9, 2016. Pan ran from them “like the Pink Panther.”¹⁵ He might have be able run a lot faster if his pockets had not been stuffed full of industry money.

In 2015, the Australian parliament passed a law that makes “benefits, rebates and the Family Tax Benefit A” conditional on vaccination status. The law is dubbed “No Jab, No Pay.”¹⁶ New York State Senator Kemp Hannon, chair of the State Health Committee, provides an example of what might be called “No Pay, No Jab.” The New York Daily News reported in 2015 that Hannon “has up to $130,000 in investments in pharmaceutical and other health-related companies. . . . In addition to his investments, Hannon over the past four years also received more than $420,000 from pharmaceutical and other medical interests. . . .”¹⁷ Hannon is also the “author of the recently passed law that will require all seventh and twelfth graders in the state to get meningitis shots.”¹⁸

Hannon’s business relationship with Pharma is but a microcosm of the entire government-industrial relationship that functions on the same “No Pay, No Jab” principle. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) exploits that principle on a colossal level.

The US White House website states that the HHS, an $80.1 billion department, “is the principal Federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services.”¹⁹

located in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH), Office of the Secretary (OS), US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) . . . is responsible for coordinating and ensuring collaboration among the many federal agencies involved in vaccine and immunization activities.20

The “many federal agencies” NVPO refers to include the CDC, FDA, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and National Institutes of Health (NIH).²¹ NVPO lists numerous other partners stating, “Each of our partners contributes by informing NVPO’s work and helping to meet the goals set forth in the National Vaccine Plan.”²²

Partners within HHS include the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), and Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Other Federal agencies include the Department of Defense (DoD), US Agency for International Development (USAID), and Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). “State and Local Partners” include the National Association of County and City Health (NACCHO), Association of State and Territorial Health (ASTHO), and Association of Immunization Managers (AIM). “Global Partners and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)” include the World Health Organization (WHO), Public Health Agency of Canada, GAVI Alliance (GAVI), and the Gates Foundation. And finally, industry partners include Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), and America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).²³

As to the deceptive heading “State and Local Partners,” the word state implies state governmental. The names “National Association of County and City Health Officials” as well as the “Association of State and Territorial Health Officials” give the impression that these organizations are government organizations. By including the Association of Immunization Managers under the “State and Local Partners” heading and under the other two organizations, one is left with the incorrect impression that it too is a government organization. These organizations are registered as independent nonprofit organizations, not government bodies.²⁴^, ²⁵^, ²⁶ But their independence is a sham. All three are heavily funded by the federal government and/or corporate funders. All three are designed to keep local vaccinators marching lockstep with federal policy. All three promote legislation designed to decrease the right of citizens to exercise personal belief exemptions to vaccinations. All three lobby legislators or support “State Legislative Liaisons” to this end.27^, ²⁸^, ²⁹^, ³⁰

Nearly 40 organizations fund the National Association of County & City Health Officials including the CDC and The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.³¹ The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials corporate alliance partners include, among others: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, PhRMA, and Sanofi Pasteur.³² The AIM Corporate Alliance Program gives corporate allies graded levels of access to AIM members based on donation amounts; $25,000 or more is the “Suggested Support” amount to be granted maximum Platinum level access.³³ A few of AIM’s partners include: Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Seqirus, “the second largest influenza vaccine company in the world.”³⁴ ³⁵

The World Health Organization, GAVI Alliance, and the Gates Foundation have strong financial interests in aggressive vaccine policy. Miloud Kaddar, Senior Advisor and Health Economist to the WHO, presented a slide slow titled “Global Vaccine Market Features and Trends.” Bullet points include:

• Global [vaccine] market projected to rise to USD 100 B by 2025

• More than 120 new products in the development pipeline

• 60 are of importance for developing countries

• Newer and more expensive vaccines are coming into the market faster than ever before.

A pie chart shows the “[g]lobal vaccine leaders” and their “[m]ajor focus on new vaccine development for industrialised country markets.” The self-identified Health Economist lists the “[t]op product sales in 2010”: Prevnar-13, Proquad, Gardasil, Prevnar (“7-valent pnenumococcal conjugate vaccine”), Fluzone, Infanrix and Pediarix, bringing in a total of $7.75 billion in sales. Kaddar reviews the importance of “Vaccine Market Growth Factors” including:

• Importance of communicable diseases and new threats

• Cost effectiveness of immunizations

• New funding opportunities (Gov, PPP, donors, Foundations)

• New research techniques and manufacturing technologies

• Increasing demand, new target population, larger emerging markets

• Higher prices, improved profitability for the industry (“blockbuster vaccines”).

Puliyel is pro-vaccine but anti “. . . ill-conceived national vaccine policies.” According to the doctor:

Such policies are promoted by the powerful VACCINE INDUSTRY; its profit-sharing stakeholders in government, academia and so-called nonprofits—such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) whose board of directors includes vaccine manufacturers [emphasis in original].

entice governments in underdeveloped countries to include vaccines of questionable health benefit. Once these vaccines are added to the country’s national immunization program, GAVI withdraws the “subsidies” putting the entire cost burden on poor countries. This “bait and switch” marketing strategy has been developed by vaccine stakeholders masquerading as “Advocates.”³⁷

In addition, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) vaccine funds are tied to “a binding confidentiality clause aimed at stifling and controlling” national level vaccine organizations.³⁸

In 2016, Global Justice Now, a UK-based organization that “. . . campaigns for a world where resources are controlled by the many, not the few,” published a heavily referenced, 54-page report titled “Gated Development: Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?” The short answer is no. The BMGF is an enormous entity with a hold over the policies and politics of both governments and organizations such as the WHO. According to the report, “The BMGF provided 11 per cent of the WHO’s entire budget in 2015 . . . .” The report fleshes out Dr. Puliyel’s assertion that both the BMGF and its Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization is filled with industry executives from “the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, which involves GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others . . .” [emphasis in original].

As many other critics have noted, the report declares that global health initiatives sponsored by BMGF must focus more on the causes of infectious disease such as poverty, poor sanitation, malnutrition, etc., and less on vaccines. Global Justice Now argues that

. . . the BMGF’s programmes are—overall—detrimental to promoting economic development and global justice. The world is being sold a myth that private philanthropy holds many of the solutions to the world’s problems, when in fact it is pushing the world in many wrong directions.39

Finally, a word about the National Vaccine Program Office “Industry Partners” is in order. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America website, PhRMA consists of more than 50 member companies including major vaccine manufacturers.⁴⁰ The Biotechnology Innovation Organization bills itself “As the world’s largest biotechnology trade association” with a membership of nearly 3,000 biotech companies.⁴¹^, ⁴² Several vaccines contain genetically modified ingredients, and many more are in development.⁴³ The American Association of Health Plans (AAHP) accepted $190 million to conceal the information in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink⁴⁴ (more on the Vaccine Safety Datalink in coming chapters).

The collaboration of several governmental organizations responsible for the implementation of vaccination policy is most impressive. That collaboration is evident in the National Vaccine Advisory Committee’s National Adult Immunization Plan. In addition to the CDC and the FDA, the plan to increase vaccination compliance in adults involves the participation of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Office of Public Health Science (OPHS)/National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO), Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Aging (AoA), Indian Health Service (IHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of Mental Health (OMH), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of the Surgeon General (OSG), Office of the Secretary (OS), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)⁴⁵ (more on the National Adult Immunization Plan in Chapter 25).

The NVPO published a 58-page document detailing the goals, objectives, and strategies of the National Vaccine Plan.⁴⁶ The plan is clear: the future for both the American and the global Herds includes more vaccines and more propaganda than ever before. Considering the fact that government has partnered with the multibillion-dollar vaccine industry and the fact that vaccine industry growth is predicted to explode in future years, no other outcome can be anticipated.

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) (CDC), Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (HRSA), America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), American Immunization Registry Association (AIRA), Association of Immunization Managers (AIM), Association of State and Territorial Officials (ASTHO), National Association of County and City Health Officials, Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO), Public Health Agency of Canada, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.47

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), Department of Defense (DoD), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Indian Health Service (IHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Agriculture.⁴⁸

Walter A. Orenstein, MD, served as NVAC Chair from 2011 to 2016. In 2000, Orenstein participated in the secret and illegal Simpsonwood meeting (more in Chapter 15). Bruce G. Gellin, MD, MPH, serves as the NVAC executive secretary. Gellin also serves as the deputy assistant secretary for health and director of the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) at HHS and “is the principle technical, strategic and policy advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health on all aspects of the National Vaccine Program.” Gellin’s vitae reads like a veritable who’s who of global vaccination policy leadership, false flag epidemics, and catastrophes involving among other things the 2005 Bird Flu nonevent and the contrived 2009 H1N1 influenza “pandemic.” He addresses the issue of “vaccine hesitancy,” a term vaccine believers and sociopaths use to describe the resistance of the vaccine informed to worship in The Church of Vaccinology. He is a coordinator of the research and development focus of the Decade of Vaccines Collaboration, which treats the effects of poverty with vaccines rather than address poverty and malnutrition. As a Warren Weaver Fellow at the Rockefeller Foundation, Gellin apparently became indoctrinated in the misguided concept that vaccines are the cornerstone of public health initiatives and a panacea for immunocompromised children in developing countries. He spreads his vaccine indoctrination to both domestic and international audiences. His apparent belief in the vaccine paradigm plays a part in the content of over a dozen medical journals as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica.49

NVAC membership is decidedly biased in favor of vaccinating Americans and the rest of the world with or without the consent of vaccine-informed individuals. Such bias destroys scientific objectivity. Like any other quota-driven salesperson, the sales strategy of the NVAC is to sell citizens on the benefits of vaccines while downplaying or denying the risks.

In 2010, Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius demonstrated the extent to which HHS would go to sell consumers on vaccines. The monthly magazine Reader’s Digest wrote up its interview with Sebelius in an article titled “H1N1: The Report Card.” RD asked Sebelius, “What can be done about public mistrust of vaccines?” She replied,

There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines.⁵⁰

The government not only censors the media’s reporting of information from “groups out there,” it also censored its own H1N1 statistics, as former CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson revealed in an interview with independent journalist Jon Rappoport. Attkisson had discovered that the CDC had stopped counting the number of H1N1 cases in the USA. She shared the details with Rappoport:

We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story.⁵¹

Attkisson provided further examples of media censorship in her book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington:

Some of the hardest pushback I ever receive comes after [executive director Jim Murphy] assigns me to look into the reported cover-up of adverse effects of various prescription drugs and military vaccinations. That series of reports leads me to investigate related stories about childhood vaccinations and their links to harmful side effects, including brain damage and autism. At the time, the Bush administration is marching in lockstep with the pharmaceutical industry in denying problems with the prescription drugs at issue as well as both military and childhood vaccines.52

Attkisson is not opposed to the government’s desire “to want their side of the story told. . . .” Her beef is with government censorship. The stonewalled journalist wrote, “They don’t want Americans to know about the many controversies or hear from the scientists doing peer-reviewed, published research that contradicts the official party line.”⁵³

Attkisson’s experience with government censorship was largely invisible to the public. In 2016, the entire world witnessed censorship surrounding the release of the documentary film Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, a film that details the story of Dr. William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower. Robert De Niro had pulled Vaxxed from the lineup at his Tribeca Film Festival due to pressure from unnamed sources. The media celebrated De Niro’s move and then recycled its tirades against Andrew Wakefield, the film’s director. Omitted from their tirades was the fact that the film told the real story of the real William Thompson who had provided US Representative Bill Posey with thousands of documents, which exposed years of CDC fraud and cover-up. Less than two weeks later, Hunter Todd, Chairman and Founding Director of Houston’s annual WorldFest film festival, pulled Vaxxed from its lineup, as well. On April 5, Todd sent a message to Philippe Diaz, Chairman of Cinema Libre, distributor of Vaxxed. Todd described “very threatening calls” from “high Houston government officials” and threats of “severe action against the festival if we showed it. . . .” Todd wrote matter-of-factly, “It is done, it is out and we have been censored. . . . There are some very powerful forces against this project.”⁵⁴ Two days later, the Houston Chronicle named the source of the threats as Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner.⁵⁵

Returning to the question Reader’s Digest asked HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “What can be done about public mistrust of vaccines?” The US government’s answer is clear: Thou shalt speak no evil of the vaccine paradigm, the vaccine clergy, the vaccine schedule, or vaccine ingredients. Heretics will be punished and silenced. Their reputations and careers will be destroyed by vaccine crusaders who will employ lies, threats, and smear campaigns.

On June 14, 2000, Linda A. Suydam, FDA senior associate commissioner, testified before the House Committee on Government Reform. She described the FDA advisory committees and assured government officials “that advisory committee recommendations are based on the best possible science and are free from bias.”⁵⁷ The following day, the same committee before which Suydam had testified submitted a Majority Staff Report titled “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making.” The report focused

. . . on two influential advisory committees utilized by Federal regulators to provide expert advice on vaccine policy:

1. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC); and

2. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP).

The VRBPAC advises the FDA on the licensing of new vaccines, while the ACIP advises the CDC on guidelines to be issued to doctors and the states for the appropriate use of vaccines.⁵⁸

Members of the advisory committees are required to disclose any financial conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from participating in decisions in which they have an interest. The Committee’s investigation has determined that conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings.⁵⁹

The conflicts of interest in the FDA’s advisory panel are a reflection of the conflicts of interest held by the FDA commissioner, Robert M. Califf, MD, whose

. . . salary is contractually underwritten in part by several large pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Novartis. He also receives as much as $100,000 a year in consulting fees from some of those companies, and from others, according to his 2014 conflict of interest disclosure. . . .⁶⁰

It’s also useful for the public to understand that the FDA not only understands how pharmaceutical companies operate, it also operates with a similar criminal culture. In 2012, members of Congress and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) became aware that FDA managers bully and intimidate employees who attempt to protect the public from unsafe products. One of their tactics includes an email surveillance program. In 2009, scientists working in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health wrote to President Obama claiming that top FDA managers “committed the most outrageous misconduct by ordering, coercing and intimidating FDA physicians and scientists to recommend approval, and then retaliating when the physicians and scientists refused to go along.”⁶² Some of the scientists were fired from their jobs, prompting another letter to the president. The scientists wrote,

It has been brought to our attention that FDA management may have just recently ordered the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) to investigate us, rather than the managers who have engaged in wrongdoing! It is an outrage that our own Agency would step up the retaliation to such a level because we have reported their wrongdoing to the United States Congress.⁶³

Ronald Kavanagh, PharmD, PhD, served as an FDA drug reviewer from 1998 to 2008. Kavanagh informed Martha Rosenberg with Truthout that the intimidation extends beyond the FDA’s Center for Devices, stating:

[t]here is also irrefutable evidence that managers at CDER [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research] have placed the nation at risk by corrupting the evaluation of drugs and by interfering with our ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs. While I was at FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs. We were prevented, except in rare instances, from presenting findings at advisory committees. In 2007, formal policies were instituted so that speaking in any way that could reflect poorly on the agency could result in termination. If we asked questions that could delay or prevent a drug’s approval—which of course was our job as drug reviewers—management would reprimand us, reassign us, hold secret meetings about us, and worse. Obviously in such an environment, people will self-censor.⁶⁴

Kavanagh went on to explain the numerous tricks manufacturers use to create the illusion that their drugs are safe and effective. When savvy reviewers challenge the illusion, manufacturers report them to FDA management “and have the reviewer removed or overruled.”65 Kavanagh was replaced as the reviewer when he voiced opposition to the use of dangerous nerve agents that would eventually be used as weapons in the Gulf Wars. The whistleblower reported his concerns to Congress, which directed him to the Department of Justice. In the end, he doesn’t believe his “complaints were taken seriously by the FBI or investigated.”⁶⁶

Corruption and collusion with industry is not a recent development. US Senator Abraham Ribicoff addressed the issue in a 1972 congressional hearing in which he listed “[t]he real problems” that “plague our regulatory programs.” Some of the many problems Ribicoff mentioned were the

day-to-day influence on regulators from outside the government . . . from representatives of the regulated industry; in which agencies with regulatory responsibilities also view themselves as advocates for a particular interest group; in which regulators move back and forth between jobs in government and executive positions in regulated industries; in which important decisions are made without input from a variety of affected interests.⁶⁷

Ribicoff concluded, “We have to do better.” Rather than doing better, the conflicts of interest are worse now than ever. In 1995, Congress established the CDC Foundation, which “connects the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with private-sector organizations and individuals to build public health programs that make our world healthier and safer.”⁶⁸ Since then, pharmaceutical companies—companies that have paid billions in fines for criminal activities—have contributed millions of dollars to the Foundation, which makes the Foundation look very much like it’s a front organization for criminals.⁶⁹ In 2015, Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, described a few of the problems with the CDC’s profitable relationship with industry including the fact that the Foundation funnels money from industry to the CDC.⁷⁰

One of the biggest conflicts of interest lies within the CDC itself because the agency is responsible for both vaccine safety and vaccine promotion. In 2004, Representative Dave Weldon addressed the matter with the supposedly independent Institute of Medicine. Weldon said,

CDC is tasked with promoting vaccination, ensuring high vaccination rates, and monitoring the safety of vaccines. They serve as their own watchdog; neither common nor desirable when seeking unbiased research. This has been a recipe for disaster with other agencies.⁷¹

Five years before Weldon addressed the IOM, family practitioner Harold Buttram, MD, stated that the

. . . arbitrary decisions in the mandating of vaccines . . . made by the government bureaucracies, which are highly partisan to the pharmaceuticals, with no recourse open to parents . . . have all the potential ingredients for a tragedy of historical proportions.72

In 2009, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services released a report on the conflicts of interest within the CDC. The New York Times covered the story by writing that

[m]ost of the experts who served on advisory panels in 2007 to evaluate vaccines for flu and cervical cancer had potential conflicts that were never resolved. . . . Some were legally barred from considering the issues but did so anyway.⁷³

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., documented extensive conflicts of interest in his book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak. In 2015, Kennedy told former Minnesota governor and TV talk show host Jesse Ventura that 97% of the people who sit on vaccine panels have the same kinds of conflicts of interest that Paul Offit has. Kennedy asked,

So the American people have to wonder, are the . . . scheduled vaccines that CDC is advising them to take, which become mandatory under state law, are those being added . . . to advance public health or are they being added because . . . somebody is making a profit from them?⁷⁴

It would appear that Brenda Fitzgerald is well qualified to answer Kennedy’s question. Fitzgerald, stepped down from her position as director of the CDC in January 2018 shortly after Politico revealed that she had “purchased tobacco, drug company and food stock, along with other financial holdings in various health companies” only a month after assuming leadership of the agency in July of 2017. According to Politico,

. . . Fitzgerald participated in meetings related to the opioid crisis, hurricane response efforts, cancer and obesity, stroke prevention, polio, Zika and Ebola. . . .

Merck, whose stock Fitzgerald purchased on Aug. 9, has been working on developing an Ebola vaccine and also makes HIV medications. Bayer, whose stock she purchased on Aug. 10, has in the past partnered with the CDC Foundation, which works closely with the CDC, to prevent the spread of the Zika virus.⁷⁵

Only five days after William Thompson “publicly admitted . . . that he and other CDC officials, including the current CDC’s Director of Immunization Safety, . . . published a study about MMR vaccine safety in 2004 . . . that ‘omitted statistically significant information’ and ‘did not follow the final study protocol,’” Fisher, speaking on behalf of the National Vaccine Information Center, renewed the organization’s “call for oversight of vaccine safety to be removed from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).” Fisher said in a highly referenced statement,

It is a conflict of interest for DHHS to be in charge of vaccine safety and also license vaccines, . . . and take money from drug companies to fast track vaccines, . . . and partner with drug companies to develop and share profits from vaccine sales, . . . and make national vaccine policies . . . that get turned into state vaccine laws . . . while also deciding which children will and will not get a vaccine injury compensation award.⁷⁷

The documentary Vaxxed also emphasizes the need to remove the charge of vaccine safety from the CDC.

In 2014, David Wright, the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) director, “quit his job and issued a searing letter claiming pervasive scientific misconduct in biomedical research at the CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Public Health Service (PHS), all part of HHS, which he characterized as ‘a remarkably dysfunctional bureaucracy.’”⁷⁸

Wright’s letter did not specifically address the problem of endemic conflicts of interest within HHS, but his summary statement to the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health regarding the “remarkably dysfunctional [HHS] bureaucracy” resonates with every American who is outraged that government has sacrificed its ethics as well as the health of American citizens on the altar of industry greed and corruption.

In the 1990s, the apostles of the vaccine industry, the medical establishment, and government greatly increased the size of their sacrificial altar, resulting in increased numbers of vaccine-injured and dead children. And in doing so, they introduced people around the world to a word that may have the potential to destroy both the Church and the entire vaccine program.

Chapter Eleven

CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST IN EVERY JAB

Chapter Eleven

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN EVERY JAB

CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST IN EVERY JAB