Investigating Lockdown Collusion
We call for an Independent Government Commission to Investigate the Implementation of Lockdown Policies
Executive Sumamry
In light of the unprecedented global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the widespread implementation of lockdown policies, it is crucial to ensure transparency and accountability in the decision-making processes of influential individuals and organizations. We call for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the roles and actions of Bill Gates, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the GAVI Vaccine Alliance, the World Health Organization (WHO), and key governmental bodies that advocated for lockdown measures.
Key Points of Concern
Influence and Decision-Making:
Bill Gates, through his foundation, has been a significant financial contributor to global health initiatives, including the WHO and GAVI.
The extensive influence of these contributions on the global health policies and lockdown decisions needs thorough examination.
Conflict of Interest:
The potential conflict of interest arising from Gates' investments in pharmaceutical companies that stood to benefit from vaccine development and distribution.
Examination of whether the financial interests of Gates and affiliated organizations impacted the promotion of lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Transparency and Accountability:
The decision-making process behind lockdown policies, including the data, models, and assumptions used to justify these measures.
The degree of transparency maintained by the WHO and governmental organizations in communicating the risks and benefits of lockdowns to the public.
Human Rights and Economic Impact:
The social, economic, and human rights implications of prolonged lockdowns.
Assessment of whether these policies were proportionate and in line with public health needs.
Coordination and Influence:
The extent of coordination between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, the WHO, and national governments.
The role of these organizations in shaping global responses to the pandemic and whether undue influence was exerted.
Objectives of the Investigation
Establish Accountability: Determine the extent to which personal or organizational interests influenced public health policies.
Ensure Transparency: Clarify the decision-making processes and the evidence base for lockdown policies.
Assess Impact: Evaluate the human, economic, and social impacts of lockdowns to understand the proportionality of these measures.
Recommend Reforms: Provide recommendations for improving transparency, accountability, and decision-making processes in future public health crises.
Evidence
Recently released transcripts reveal that Dr. Anthony Fauci knew there was never any evidence supporting the six-foot distancing requirement, nor evidence supporting masking children during the COVID pandemic, and yet he proceeded with suggesting the guidelines anyway.
Under oath, Fauci admits that he forced our kids to wear masks for no reason.
Grounds for Prosecution
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., contends there are grounds to prosecute Dr. Anthony Fauci, the face of the COVID-19 pandemic in America, based on congressional testimony from a top aide to the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
“The most important knowledge that we learned is that [Dr.] David Morens, 20-year assistant to Fauci, was purposely evading FOIA, which is the law. More than that, he was also destroying evidence,” Paul told The Daily Signal, referring to the Freedom of Information Act and Morens’ testimony Wednesday before a House select subcommittee.
He was taking emails and destroying them,” Paul said of Morens. “When he was asked about it, he said he didn’t know emails were federal records. Nobody is that stupid.” Morens, former senior adviser to Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testified before the House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
The select committee said it had evidence that Morens obstructed the House investigation of the origin of COVID-19, deleted related federal records, and shared nonpublic information about the National Institutes of Health with Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit.
Reference: https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/24/rand-paul-fauci-could-be-indicted-for-deleting-records/
Ex-CDC Director Dr. Redfield Claims Vaccine Mandates Were Not Based on Science
Organizations that implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates dismissed the science supporting the contextual nature of microbial virulence, miscalculated patient and system-level harms of vaccination policies, and ignored or legitimized the coercive elements built into their design.
A large minority of healthcare workers resisted COVID-19 mandates, and the responses of authorities to this resistance led to damaged professional reputations, job losses, and suspension or termination of practice licenses.
"The joint effect of dismissals, early retirements, career changes, and vaccine injuries disabling some compliant Healthcare workers from adequate performance has exacerbated existing crises within health systems."
Reference: https://www.aimspress.com/article/doi/10.3934/publichealth.2024035
PCR Covid Tests Give 97% Change of False Positive
Earlier this month, Portuguese judges upheld a decision from a lower court that found the forced quarantine of four holidaymakers to be unlawful. The case centered on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Covid-19 PCR tests.
The deliberation of the Lisbon Appeal Court is comprehensive and fascinating. It ruled that the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by confining the Germans to the hotel. The judges also said that only a doctor can “diagnose” someone with a disease, and were critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed by one. The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” According to a report by The Portugal News, the judges concluded that “the probability of a person receiving a false positive [from a PCR test] is 97% or higher”, citing the following statement from Jaafar at al. in a letter to the editor of the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases[1]:
“at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture” In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used’’ and that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.’’ In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing.
The judges spelled out their interpretation of this statement in their decision. The decision was primarily published in Portuguese, but it provided an English translation for the judges’ understanding of the letter by Jaafar and colleagues:
“This means that if a person gets a ‘positive’ PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.”
Earlier this year, data from three US states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the virus.
NIH Mask Study Suggests N95 Covid Masks Expose Wearers to Toxic Compounds
How Bill Gates and partners used their Private Foundations to control the global Covid response — with no oversight
Four health organizations, working closely together, spent almost $10 billion on responding to Covid across the world.
These organizations used their influence at the World Health Organization to create an ambitious worldwide distribution plan for the dissemination of those Covid tools to needy nations, though it would ultimately fail to live up to its original promises.
The four organizations are:
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foudnation
The Gavi Vaccine Alliance
The Wellcome Trust
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
The Influence Operation:
The four organizations have spent almost $10 billion on Covid since 2020 – the same amount as the leading U.S. agency tasked with fighting Covid abroad.
The organizations collectively gave $1.4 billion to the World Health Organization, where they helped create a critical initiative to distribute Covid-19 tools. That program failed to achieve its original benchmarks.
The organizations’ leaders had unprecedented access to the highest levels of governments, spending at least $8.3 million to lobby lawmakers and officials in the U.S. and Europe.
Officials from the U.S., EU and representatives from the WHO rotated through these four organizations as employees, helping them solidify their political and financial connections in Washington and Brussels.
The leaders of the four organizations pledged to bridge the equity gap. However, during the worst waves of the pandemic, low-income countries were left without life-saving vaccines.
Leaders of three of the four organizations opposed efforts to waive intellectual property rights, a move that critics saw as protecting the interests of pharmaceutical giants over people living poorer nations.
“What makes Bill Gates qualified to be giving advice and advising the U.S. government on where they should be putting the tremendous resources?” asked Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser for the Doctors Without Borders’ Access Campaign.
The largest and most powerful was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the largest philanthropies in the world. Then there was Gavi, the global vaccine organization that Gates helped to found to inoculate people in low-income nations, and the Wellcome Trust, a British research foundation with a multibillion dollar endowment that had worked with the Gates Foundation in previous years. Finally, there was the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, the international vaccine research and development group that Gates and Wellcome both helped to create in 2017.
“I think we should be deeply concerned,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University professor who specializes in public-health law. “Putting it in a very crass way, money buys influence. And this is the worst kind of influence. Not just because it’s money — although that’s important, because money shouldn’t dictate policy — but also, because it’s preferential access, behind closed doors.” Gostin said that such power, even if propelled by good intentions and expertise, is “anti-democratic, because it’s extraordinarily non-transparent, and opaque” and “leaves behind ordinary people, communities and civil society.
For example, while President Joe Biden’s efforts to obtain an additional $5 billion in funding for the administration’s international work combatting the virus were floundering in Congress, he still managed to slip $500 million for CEPI into his budget proposal — $100 million a year for five years.
The WHO was crucial to the groups’ rise to power. All had longstanding ties to the global health body. The boards of both CEPI and Gavi have a specially designated WHO representative. There is also a revolving door between employment in the groups and work for the WHO: Former WHO employees now work at the Gates Foundation and CEPI; some, such as Chris Wolff, the deputy director of country partnerships at the Gates Foundation, occupy important positions.
Much of the groups’ clout with the WHO stems simply from money. Since the start of the pandemic in 2020, the Gates Foundation, Gavi, and the Wellcome Trust have donated collectively more than $1.4 billion to the WHO — a significantly greater amount than most other official member states, including the United States and the European Commission, according to data provided by the WHO.
“No one’s actually holding these actors to account,” said Sophie Harman, professor of international politics at Queen Mary University of London. “And they’re the ones that are really shaping our ability to respond to pandemics.”
Reference:
Documents show Bill Gates has given $319 million to media outlets to promote his global agenda
A look at the database of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation reveals how the oligarch influencing the global pandemic response has bankrolled hundreds of media outlets to the tune of at least $319 million.
MintPress can reveal that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has made over $300 million worth of donations to fund media projects. Recipients of this cash include many of America’s most important news outlets, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic. Gates also sponsors a myriad of influential foreign organizations, including the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom; prominent European newspapers such as Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain); as well as big global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.
That the Gates Foundation is underwriting a significant chunk of our media ecosystem leads to serious problems with objectivity. “The foundation’s grants to media organizations…raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?” wrote Gates’s local Seattle Times in 2011. This was before the newspaper accepted BMGF money to fund its “education lab” section.
Reference:
Oligarchs Launched Trusted News Initiative to Disseminate Authoritative Information & Censor Opposiiton
The “Trusted News Initiative” was a clandestine collaboration spearheaded the BBC that included Washington Post, Reuters, AP, all social media sites, and many others.
BBC,AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, Information Futures Lab, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta, Microsoft, Thomson Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post, Kompas – Indonesia, Dawn – Pakistan, Indian Express, NDTV – India, ABC – Australia, SBS – Australia, NHK – Japan.
Weaponization Committee Exposes the Biden Administration Censorship Regime in New Report
oday, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report titled, "The Censorship-Industrial Complex: How Top Biden White House Officials Coerced Big Tech to Censor Americans, True Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration." The report details the monthslong campaign by the Biden White House to coerce large companies, namely Facebook, Google, and Amazon, to censor books, videos, posts, and other content online. By the end of 2021, Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon changed their content moderation policies in ways that were directly responsive to criticism from the Biden Administration. After reviewing tens of thousands of emails and nonpublic documents between the Biden White House and Big Tech, the Committee's report reveals:
Big Tech changed their content moderation policies because of the Biden White House
The Biden White House's censorship targeted true information, satire, and other content that did not violate the platforms' policies
The Biden White House's censorship campaign had a chilling effect on other speech
The White House had leverage because the companies had other policy concerns involving the Biden Administration
The Biden White House pushed censorship of books, not just social media
While the Biden White House's pressure campaign largely succeeded, its effects were devastating. By suppressing free speech and intentionally distorting public debate in the modern town square, ideas and policies were no longer fairly tested and debated on their merits. The First Amendment prohibits the government from "abridging the freedom of speech." Thus, "any law or government policy that reduces that freedom on the [social media] platforms . . . violates the First Amendment." To inform potential legislation, the Committee and Select Subcommittee have been investigating the Executive Branch's collusion with third party intermediaries to censor speech. The Committee and Select Subcommittee have uncovered other serious violations of the First Amendment throughout the Executive Branch during the Biden Administration.
Reference:
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for robust and transparent governance in public health decision-making. Given the significant influence of Bill Gates and related organizations on global health policies, it is imperative to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation to ensure that public health decisions were made in the best interests of society and not unduly influenced by personal or financial interests. A special counsel investigation will provide the necessary oversight to restore public trust and improve future responses to global health emergencies.
Last updated
