Scientific Misconduct Has Eroded Public Trust

Scientific Misconduct Has Eroded Public Trust And Accountability

Tony Nikolic

May 30, 2024

Scientific misconduct has cast a long shadow over the fields of medicine and public health, significantly impacting public trust and posing serious ethical and legal challenges.

Cases from the United States, UK, and Australia reveal a troubling pattern, where scientific integrity is compromised, and often influenced by the commercial interests of multinational corporations.

This article explores these impacts, the erosion of trust in journals and institutions, and the legal consequences faced by entities engaging in or abetting such misconduct.

Erosion of Public Trust

Public trust is the cornerstone upon which the medical field rests. However, instances of scientific misconduct, particularly those involving pharmaceutical giants, have led to a growing public skepticism prompting some experts to initiate programs such as Restoring Invisibile and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) Initiative.

One notorious example is Study 329, a clinical trial funded by GlaxoSmithKline that misleadingly promoted the safety and efficacy of the anti-depressant paroxetine in adolescents.

The misleading publication in 2001 has had long-standing effects on anti-depressant use in children, contributing to a mistrust in pharmaceutical research.

The study exposed allegations of researchers miscoding side effects to the extent that serious adverse events occurred in 11 patients in the paroxetine group, five in the imipramine group, and two in the placebo group.

Ten of the 11 serious adverse events in the paroxetine group were psychiatric, for example, depression, suicidality, hostility or euphoria, some of the very issues the medications were indicated to treat.

In 2004, Dr. Elspeth Garland, a professor at the University of British Columbia, called attention to the “weak or non-existent evidence of efficacy” of SSRIs in this setting and the “serious psychiatric adverse effects” of paroxetine.

A British Medical Journal editorial documents that there has been no correction, no retraction, no apology and mostly no comment from the authors, journal editor, or from the universities where authors worked in 2001.

The RIAT analyses of Study 329 and the lack of any correction of the original flawed paper have major implications for clinical practice decisions being made on the basis of published clinical trials.

Leading experts on clinical trials now believe that we must question the validity of the data and conclusions of all published clinical trials that have not been subject to independent analysis.

Independent analysis of Study 329 demonstrated serious harms and a lack of efficacy for acute and longer-term use of paroxetine and imipramine for adolescents with major depression.

+ This example of the RIAT initiative reveals that the current methods of trial conduct, analysis and publication are unacceptable and required further oversight.

+ Published conclusions about efficacy and safety of drugs without independent analysis cannot be accepted as trustworthy.

+ It is essential that primary trial data and protocols for all clinical trials be made available for independent analysis.

Decline in Journal Credibility

The integrity of scientific publishing has been seriously questioned in light of misconduct. The retraction of high-profile papers has not only marred the reputation of journals but also shaken the faith of the public in medical research outputs.

For instance, the retractions of COVID-19 research papers by reputable journals due to questionable data integrity have only added to the public’s confusion and distrust during a global health crisis.

Independent evaluations of clinical trials for medications and vaccines, like the COVID-19 vaccine, are essential as a utilitarian tool to safeguard the community from potentially harmful practices by multinational companies.

These evaluations ensure that all side effects are accurately reported and assessed, mitigating risks associated with under-reporting.

For example, during the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, independent reviews were crucial in identifying rare but serious side effects, such as blood clots associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. This led to tailored usage recommendations to maximise safety.

However, during the COVID period, drug regulators, government officials and pharmaceutical companies were suspected of hiding data, under-emphasising side effect reports, reports of harm and deaths until public inquiries, court challenges, and independent media came knocking.

Although dismissed as conspiracy theories, the issue of scientific misconduct, suppression/censorship of independent data and expert testimony remains an area of significant concern.

Similarly, the re-examination of the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx highlighted the importance of independent scrutiny after initial trials under-reported serious cardiovascular risks, leading to its eventual market withdrawal.

These cases underscore the value of independent evaluations in maintaining transparency, fostering public trust, and ensuring that the collective health benefits of medical products outweigh potential risks.

Legal Repercussions and Corporate Influence

Legal actions against pharmaceutical companies have revealed a pattern of behaviour intended to prioritize profits over public safety. Notably:

    Merck’s Vioxx Controversy: Merck faced numerous lawsuits for concealing the risks of its painkiller, Vioxx, which was linked to increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. The company settled for $4.85 billion in 2007, one of the largest pharmaceutical court settlements.

    Pfizer Inc.: In 2009, Pfizer Inc. was fined $2.3 billion for violations under the False Claims Act, marking it as the largest healthcare fraud settlement at that time. This legal action addressed Pfizer’s illegal promotion of several pharmaceutical products, including the anti-inflammatory drug Bextra. The settlement included a criminal fine of $1.195 billion and civil liabilities amounting to approximately $1 billion. This case highlighted significant issues regarding the under-reporting of side effects and the unethical promotion of medical products beyond their approved usage, demonstrating the critical need for independent evaluations to safeguard public health.

    GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Study 329: In 2012, GSK agreed to pay $3 billion in fines, in part for fraudulently promoting paroxetine. This case highlighted the issue of publishing biased research to support pharmaceutical sales, leading to one of the largest healthcare fraud settlements in U.S. history.

    AstraZeneca and COVID-19 Vaccine: The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine faced scrutiny and legal challenges due to initially undisclosed rare blood clot risks. Though not leading to significant legal penalties, this issue has fuelled debates on transparency and safety in emergency vaccine approvals.

Global Legal Frameworks

Various countries have developed frameworks to address and mitigate scientific misconduct:

    United States: The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) oversees the integrity of biomedical and behavioural research supported by the Public Health Service. Penalties for misconduct can include debarment from funding and criminal charges.

    United Kingdom: The UK Research Integrity Office offers guidance and support for good research practice but lacks enforcement power. Legal actions tend to be taken directly against entities like pharmaceutical companies rather than individual researchers.

    Australia: The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research outlines standards for honesty, rigour, and transparency. Breaches can result in withdrawal of funding and reporting to professional bodies.

Despite these facades existing globally, the exaggerated COVID crisis has raised many questions about the perceptions the community have about such bodies and their capacity to discharge their duties independently.

With regard to the COVID crisis, we saw many pharmaceutical executives, public figures, media personalities, so-called public health experts, politicians, and corporations making statements about the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines that did not appear in some of the contracts for the vaccines globally.

This, in addition to the journals purporting to find results without the clinical trial ending, demonstrated a perceived bias that perforated the halls of institutions that would otherwise protect citizens from such overreach.

Instead, these institutions turned into corporate cheerleaders supporting the utilitarian benefits of an untested mRNA genetic experiment that were showing significant safety signals in relation to genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and fertility problems early on.

The Way Forward: Safeguarding Scientific Integrity

To protect science from undue corporate influence, stronger regulatory and legislative measures are necessary. These include:

+  Enhanced Disclosure Requirements: Researchers and journals must disclose all conflicts of interest and funding sources to prevent biased research outcomes.

+ Independent Oversight: Bodies like the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States are pivotal in the independent review and approval of drugs, ensuring that corporate interests do not compromise public safety.

+ Public and Transparent Research Registers: Initiatives like the AllTrials campaign advocate for the registration of all clinical trials and the full publication of their results to prevent data suppression and selective reporting.

The challenge of scientific misconduct in public health is a multi-faceted problem that extends beyond individual instances of fraud to include systemic issues related to the influence of multinational corporations, major institutions, and persons acting in their capacity as public officials.

Restoring public trust requires a concerted effort to enforce rigorous legal and ethical standards in scientific research and publishing.

Only through transparency, accountability, and enhanced regulatory oversight with strong judicial responses can we hope to protect the integrity of science and ensure that it serves the public good, rather than specific corporate interests.

References

Legal case of GlaxoSmithKline: United States v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 11-10398-RWZ (D. Mass. July 2, 2012).

Settlement announcement for Merck’s Vioxx: In re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation, 2:05-md-01657 (D.N.J. 2007).

Letter 101 Study 329: Why is it so important?

WEF Demands Limits on Car Ownership

WEF Demands Limits on Car Ownership Among General Public
Frank Bergman
May 17, 2024

The unelected World Economic Forum (WEF) is calling on global governments to begin placing limits on private car ownership among the general public.

The globalist WEF is demanding that regular families with more than one car should be forced to give up one of their vehicles.

Despite the fact that a person can only drive one car at a time, the WEF insists that limiting the number of vehicles people can own will help to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

The WEF argues that members of the public must be forced into giving up a vehicle as part of the organization’s “One Less Car” agenda.

However, the agenda appears to be a stepping stone for the WEF’s long-promoted plan to eliminate all private car ownership.

This week, the WEF published a new article detailing the expectations for families to begin adopting the “One Less Car” lifestyle.

To support the scheme, Klaus Schwab’s Switzerland-based organization highlights a recent study in Australia.

The WEF noted that Uber Australia conducted the “One Less Car” trial alongside behavioral scientists and other rideshare companies in an effort to reduce the number of cars in private hands.

The article states that electric vehicles are part of the solution, but adds: “We must also shift the ‘one person, one car’ mentality.”

For four weeks, 58 Australians gave up driving one of their cars and switched to using alternative forms of transportation.

Participants with one car gave that up, and those with two moved to use just one, etc.

Having fewer cars in the household meant they were often forced to rely on public transport or ride bikes.

However, participants in the study – which was conducted by rideshare companies – conveniently appreciated being left stranded without a car to get around.

“I’m continuing to see the value of not having a second car,” one of the participants said after the four-week-long study.

The WEF article goes on to list “seven actions that city planners and leaders can focus on to support Australia’s green transition.”

These include governments around the world implementing “policy reform towards one less car.”

The globalist group further continued by arguing that policies to restrict private car ownership give citizens more choices rather than less freedom.

“The full suite of city plans and strategies must pull together to end the overreliance on the private car so that all people have four-plus travel modes to choose from no matter where in the city they live, work, study or play.”

In 2022, Norwegian Finance CEO and WEF speaker Kjerstin Braathen said people should be prepared to make major sacrifices to comply with the green agenda.

Braathen warned that the public can expect “pain,” inflation,” and “energy shortages” due to the “climate change” agenda of the WEF and fellow globalist organization the United Nations (UN).

“We need to accept that there will be some pain in the process,” Braathen said.

“The pace that we need [to end climate change] will open up for missteps.

“It will open up for shortages of energy.

“It will create inflationary pressures, and maybe we need to start talking about that — that that pain is actually worth it.”

Earlier this year, Schwab gave an address at the WEF’s annual World Governments Summit in Dubai where he laid out his vision for a ban on private car ownership.

The WEF founder described a world where nobody owns their own car.

Instead, the only vehicles on the roads would be those that transport elites to “your hotel and bring you to the airport.”

He said that cars would be rented or shared rather than owned, describing the plan as “Uberization.”

“We are not in the age of capitalism,” Schwab said.

“We have entered the age of talents.

“We will see the second wave of the Internet revolution; we have machine-to-machine interaction, 3D printing, and big data.

“All together, these will create the tsunami of change in industry.

“The first aspect of the change is ‘Uberization’ of the economy – and it will not be limited to taxis!

“We will have an app for all our needs for government services.

“The second dimension relates to robots and drones, and I have to congratulate you on what you’re doing on drones. It is pioneering.”

Schwab added: “The new technology wave is changing who we are.

“There is research going on in biology, regeneration of body parts, enzymes, and so on.”

These elements of technological progress have tremendous social implications, according to Schwab.

“When we meet for the 20th Government Summit, you will use an app like Uber, but not to call some driver.

“An automatically guided car will come to your hotel and bring you to the airport.”

“At the 10th or 15th summit, we will pay not necessarily with Bitcoin but with some virtual currency.”

“We are only starting to understand what this means for government, education,” Schwab said.

“Since the wave is coming so fast, governments have the obligation to prepare their people for change.”

“In 2030, Los Angeles will be private car-driven free,” Schwab added.

WATCH:

    Say goodbye to your car …

    The elites are trying to get rid of private car ownership.

    As parroted by the leader the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab:

    "By 2030 Los Angeles will be private car driven free"

    🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/QEwuHsBw1L

    — Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) April 12, 2024

“We need government and civil society to work together to shape the ecosystem and shape the solutions,” Schwab concluded.

“It has to be done jointly.”

The WEF has been pushing this agenda for several years now.

In 2016, the WEF published an article announcing that the public must “say goodbye to your car.”

The WEF continued by laying out a plan where car ownership is banned and people must “request access” to a government-owned vehicle.

This “centralized ride-sharing service” would be paid for using “digital tokens” issued to members of the public by the government, the WEF explains.

The WEF report concludes:

“The time is now to begin thinking, planning, and acting together to transform our transportation system, and our cities, in a way that benefits every member of society.”

Bill Gates Pushes Vaccinations in Food Supply

Bill Gates Pushes Vaccinations in Food Supply to ‘Fight Climate Change’
Frank Bergman
May 16, 2024

Billionaire Bill Gates has been exposed as the driving force behind a shadowy organization that is pushing for governments to begin vaccinating the food supply in order to supposedly “fight climate change.”

The Microsoft co-founder has been quietly funneling vast sums of cash into a firm seeking to vaccinate all cows in cattle herds around the world that are destined for the food supply.

According to a report from Axios, Gates is the leader of an investment fund behind ArkeaBio.

ArkeaBio is a Boston pharmaceutical company behind a new livestock vaccine.

According to the company, the vaccine will help reduce global emissions from livestock and “save the planet” from “climate change.”

Gates and other unelected globalist groups such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN), claim that methane from cows is one of the main contributors to the so-called “climate crisis.”

In recent years, Gates, the WEF, and the UN have been demonizing the agriculture industry while calling for limits, or even bans, on the general public’s consumption of meat and dairy products.

The WEF, UN, and green agenda politicians argue that methane gasses from cattle, or “cow farts,” cause “global warming.”

The pharma firm claims its vaccine reduces livestock methane emissions by suppressing cow farts.

The report reveals that Gates pumped $26.5 million into an investment fund he founded which was then funneled to ArkeaBio in the form of venture capital funding.

The Gates-funded company claims cows create more than 5% of global “greenhouse gasses.”

Vaccines could be a relatively low-cost, scalable solution, particularly as food demand increases.

However, while the idea of tainting the food supply with vaccines causes outrage among many, Axios argues that the general public has now begun to accept the idea.

“The whole thing feels a little dystopian — giving animals injections so they cook the planet a little less before we cook some of them — but agribusiness sailed over the dystopian hurdle long ago,” the report states.

Gates, who isn’t a scientist or a doctor, is notorious for his interest in vaccines, “climate change,” and the food supply.

He was a staunch advocate of vaccinating the public with Covid mRNA shots, despite the risks.

As Slay News reported, Gates has been increasingly setting his sights on meat consumption among the general public and seeking to infuse this agenda with his other interests.

According to Gates and his globalist “green agenda” allies, beef cattle herds are “destroying the planet” due to their alleged “emissions.”

Gates argues that the only solution to stop the claimed impact of cattle on “global warming” is to either “modify” cows or eliminate them.

In a recent episode of his podcast “Unconfuse Me With Bill Gates,” the host unveiled his plans for using artificial intelligence (AI) to target the food supply.

Gates said he believes that AI would have a clear role to play in fighting “climate change.”

Regarding the food supply, Gates revealed that AI will be able to develop a solution to solve the “problem” of meat consumption.

He revealed plans to use AI to genetically modify cows to produce less methane.

Gates revealed that the long-term plan is to use AI to eliminate cows altogether by using the technology to develop a way to manufacture “meat without the cow.”

Additionally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $4.8 million grant to a London-based company to develop gas masks for cows.

The masks are a similar concept to carbon capture technology.

Other research looks into food additives that go into the cows’ feed.

Gates is also pushing for cows to be genetically “modified” to advance this agenda.

However, despite the growing efforts to demonize the farming industry, a new study has just concluded that blaming livestock for “climate change” is a globalist hoax.

As Slay News reported, the new study debunked the globalist narrative that emissions from cows are causing “climate change” while proving that cattle herds actually lower methane gas levels in the atmosphere.

According to the new study, blaming cows for methane emissions ignores cattle’s relationship with the land.

The researchers found that, if grazing cattle were removed from pastures, emissions would actually go up, not down.

Nevertheless, the war on food doesn’t appear to going away anytime soon.

Stock up on all-American vaccine-free beef now while you still can.

Global pact to fight future pandemics is a “business scheme”

Former World Health Organisation medical officer Dr David Bell says talks to draw up a global pact to help fight future pandemics is a “business scheme” based on a “fallacy” there is an increasing risk of widespread epidemics.

The WHO’s 194 member states are attempting to strike a landmark global agreement on handling future pandemics.

“It’s a business scheme on a level we’ve never seen before to channel public funds into pharmaceutical companies and investment houses that own them,” Dr Bell told Sky News Australia.

“In the process impoverish the population and take away the basic freedoms we thought were ours.”

This interview on The Outsiders was recorded the day after our International Press Conference last weekend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V58v-sRK8M

Only 4 to 5% of COVID vaccine batches responsible for all vaccination-related deaths

Startling Revelation: Only 4 to 5% of COVID Vaccine Batches Responsible for All Vaccination-Related Deaths, Yet U.S. Medicine Regulators Turn a Blind Eye!
By The Exposé on December 8, 2023

An investigation of official U.S. Government data, provided by the Centers for Disease Control, has revealed that extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths have been reported against specific lot numbers of the Covid-19 vaccines numerous times.

This means the deadliest batches of Covid-19 vaccine have now been identified but Medicine Regulators have refused to withdraw them and they are still being administered to the public.

The figures reveal that every single death reported as an adverse reaction to the Covid-19 injections has been caused by just 4 to 5% of the batches of Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines produced.

But what’s perhaps more concerning is that the small minority of “deadly” lots were distributed widely across the United States, while other “benign” lots were sent to just a few locations.

The data used in the investigation was pulled from the publicly accessible VAERS database which can be viewed here. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a United States programme for vaccine safety, co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The programme collects information via reports made by doctors, nurses, and patients about adverse events (possible harmful side effects) that occur after the administration of vaccines to ascertain whether the risk-benefit ratio is high enough to justify the continued use of any particular vaccine.

The reports pulled from the database were ones that had been submitted up to October 15th 2021 and they included all adverse reactions reported against the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections, as well as all adverse reactions reported against the influenza vaccines; which were used to generate a control dataset.

The VAERS database showed a total of 1,608 adverse event reports against the flu vaccines alongside 15 deaths and 73 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 494.

The ‘lot number’ is a specific string of numbers and letters that tracks a specific batch of vaccine from production and into a person’s arm and it is usually found on a vaccine label or accompanying packaging.

The above chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the influenza vaccines sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event.

Except for a few spikes, the number of adverse events per lot number was generally the same, with no more than 26 reports being made against a single lot number of influenza vaccine.

The above charts show the count of lots by the number of reports of adverse reactions per lot for the influenza vaccines. It shows that 33% of the lots (165 / 494) only had a single adverse reaction report made against them, whilst just 0.6% of the lots (3 / 494) had at least 20 adverse reaction reports made against them.

The above chart shows how many times a specific lot number was identified in an adverse reaction report of which the person had died following vaccination against the Flu. Ninety-seven percent of the lots (480 / 494) were associated with zero deaths, whilst 13 lots were associated with a single death and 1 lot was associated with 2 deaths.

The above chart shows the number of states within the USA a specific log number of the influenza vaccine was distributed to.

The VAERS data shows that 44% of the lots (219 / 494) were sent to just a single state within the USA, whilst a further 17% (86 / 494) were sent to 2 states, 10% (50 / 494) were sent to 3 states, 5% (24 / 494) were sent to 4 states, 3% (17 / 494) were sent to 5 states, 2% (11 / 494) were sent to 6 states, and just 0.4 (2 / 494) were sent to 12 states within the USA.

All of the above data was then used as a control dataset to compare against VAERS data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.

The VAERS database showed a total of 171,463 adverse event reports against the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine alongside 2,828 deaths and 14,262 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 4,522.

This data alone shows that there have been 106 times as many adverse reactions, 189 times as many deaths, and 195 times as many hospitalisations due to the Pfizer Covid-19 jab than there have been due to all other influenza vaccines combined.

The above chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event. Unfortunately, we do not have reliable information about standard lot sizes.

The highest number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against a single lot number of the influenza vaccine was 26. Which makes it all the more shocking to discover that the highest number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against a single lot number of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine up to October 15th 2021 was 3,563, and this isn’t an anomaly.

Thousands of adverse event reports have been made against a single lot number of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine numerous times, and unfortunately, the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine hasn’t fared any better.

The VAERS database showed a total of 188,998 adverse event reports against the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine alongside 2,603 deaths and 10,225 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 5,510.

This data alone shows that there have been 118 times as many adverse reactions, 174 times as many deaths, and 140 times as many hospitalisations due to the Moderna Covid-19 jab than there have been due to all other influenza vaccines combined.

The above chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event, and it shows that the Moderna jab fared even worse than the Pfizer jab in this department with the highest number of adverse event reports against a single lot number of Moderna Covid-19 vaccine totalling a staggering 4,967.

The above chart shows the count of lots against the range of adverse events reported per lot of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. The data reveals that 2,908 lots (64%) had just a single adverse event report made against them, whilst 2 specific lots had over 3000 adverse event reports made against them.

Shockingly we can also see from the data that 30 lots of Pfizer vaccine had between 1,000 and 1,499 adverse event reports per lot, another 20 lots had between 1,500 and 1,999 adverse event reports per lot, and another 23 lots had between 2,000 and 2,499 adverse event reports per lot.

This suggests that there was a small number of dangerous batches of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine and a large quantity of seemingly harmless (at least in the short term) batches of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

But the investigation of VAERS data also revealed that reported deaths due to the Pfizer vaccine were again only associated with certain batches of the jab. The chart above shows that 96% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine had zero death reports made against them. Meaning the 2,828 reported deaths were associated with just 4% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine.

Five lot numbers were associated with 61-80 deaths each, a further 5 lot numbers were associated with 81-100 deaths each, and just 2 separate lot numbers were associated with over 100 deaths each.

The same can be seen for the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. Ninety-five percent of the lots of Moderna vaccine had zero death reports made against them. Meaning the 2,603 deaths were associated with just 5% of the lots of Moderna vaccine.

Thirteen lot numbers were associated with 41-60 deaths each, 2 lot numbers were associated with 61-80 deaths each and 1 lot number was associated with 81-100 deaths.

The investigation of VAERS data also found that specific batches of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines which were distributed to between 13 and 50 states across the USA had an unusually high number of adverse event reports and deaths compared to lots that were distributed to 12 states or less across the USA

As you can see from the above table 4,289 different lots of Pfizer vaccine were distributed to 12 states or less across the USA, recording 9,141 adverse event reports against them alongside 99 deaths and 657 hospitalisations. This equates to an average of 2 adverse event reports per lot and 0 deaths and hospitalisations.

However, a further 130 different lots of Pfizer vaccine were distributed to between 13-50 states across the USA, recording 166,170 adverse event reports, 2,799 deaths, and 14,155 hospitalisations. This equates to an average of 1,278 adverse event reports per lot number, alongside 22 deaths and 109 hospitalisations.

This data, therefore, shows that each lot from the 130 different lot numbers of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine distributed to more than 13 states, harmed on average 639 times more people, hospitalised on average 109 times more people, and killed on average 22 times more people.

The above chart on the left shows the number of adverse event reports by lot number sent to 13 or more states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Pfizer vaccine that have caused the most harm in the USA. The most harmful of which is lot number ‘EK9231’; causing over 3,500 adverse event reports.

The above chart on the left shows the number of deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine by lot number sent to 13+ states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Pfizer vaccine that have caused the most deaths in the USA. The deadliest of which is lot number ‘EN6201’ causing almost 120 deaths.

The above chart on the left shows the number of adverse event reports against the Moderna vaccine by lot number sent to 13 or more states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Moderna vaccine that have caused the most harm in the USA. The most harmful of which is lot number ‘039K20A’; causing over 4,000 adverse event reports.

The second most harmful batch of Moderna vaccine was assigned lot number ‘041L20A’, and media reports show that it was actually recalled by the Orange County Healthcare Agency in January 2021 following reports of allergic reactions.

The above chart on the left shows the number of deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Moderna vaccine by lot number sent to 13+ states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of the Moderna vaccine that have caused the most deaths in the USA. The deadliest of which is lot number ‘039K20A’ causing almost 100 deaths.

Conclusion

This investigation of VAERS data reveals several concerning findings which warrant further investigation, but it also leads to questions of why authorities within the USA, which are supposed to monitor the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine,s have not discovered this themselves.

The data clearly shows that the Covid-19 vaccination campaign has been significantly more harmful and deadly than the influenza vaccination campaign. This fact alone begs the question as to how the FDA advisory committee could possibly vote Seventeen to Zero in favour of approving the Pfizer vaccine for use in children aged 5 to 11.

One voting member of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee admitted that it will not be fully known whether Pfizer’s vaccine is safe for 5 to 11-year-old children until it begins being administered.

Dr Eric Rubin of Harvard University said – “We’re never going to learn how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes”.

But the investigation of VAERS has also identified the specific batches of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that have caused the most harm across the USA, which leads to other extremely serious questions requiring urgent answers.

Why is it that certain batches of the vaccine have proven to be more harmful than others?

Why is it that certain batches of Covid-19 vaccine have proven to be deadlier than others?

Why is it that the most harmful and deadly Covid-19 vaccines were distributed across the entire USA, whilst the least harmful and deadly were only ever distributed to a few states? Was this done on purpose?

Could this just be a quality control issue?

A Pfizer whistleblower from a Kansas manufacturing facility did after all reveal that “People are being made to sign off on things that normally they wouldn’t, and then they wonder why their own employees won’t take it”.

New heart syndrome affects 90% of US population

Brand-new heart syndrome reportedly affects 90% of U.S. population, American Medical Association claims, no explanation offered

Mysterious Brand-New Heart Syndrome Reportedly Affects 90% of U.S. Population
COVID Propaganda Roundup: The latest updates on the “new normal” – chronicling the lies, distortions, and abuses by the ruling class.
By Ben Bartee
Global Research, May 14, 2024

 

Via American Heart Association, October 2023:

“Health experts are redefining cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, prevention and management, according to a new American Heart Association presidential advisory published today in the Association’s flagship journal Circulation.

Various aspects of cardiovascular disease that overlap with kidney disease, Type 2 diabetes and obesity support the new approach. For the first time, the American Heart Association defines the overlap in these conditions as cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome. People who have or are at risk for cardiovascular disease may have CKM syndrome…

According to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update, 1 in 3 U.S. adults have three or more risk factors that contribute to cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders and/or kidney disease. CKM affects nearly every major organ in the body, including the heart, brain, kidney and liver. However, the biggest impact is on the cardiovascular system, affecting blood vessels and heart muscle function, the rate of fatty buildup in arteries, electrical impulses in the heart and more.”

Although the diagnostic designation CKM only materialized last fall, according to recently released data from the Journal of the American Medical Association, a full 90% of Americans might be afflicted.

Via Healthline (emphasis added):

“A new study has revealed that roughly 90% of Americans may have cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

The risks are greatest among older adults, men, and Black individuals, the report, which was published in JAMA Wednesday, found.

The American Heart Association (AHA) introduced a new staging system in 2023 — called CKM syndrome — to better treat and manage cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic diseases, since they are deeply connected and often require a multidisciplinary approach.

CKM syndrome is a systemic disorder that has links between heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, and obesity.”

Via Journal of the American Medical Association (emphasis added):

“Almost 90% of US adults met criteria for CKM syndrome (stage 1 or higher) and 15% met criteria for advanced stages, neither of which improved between 2011 and 2020. The lack of progress, in part, may reflect concomitant improvement and worsening of different risk factors over time. Substantial between-subgroup differences in advanced stages were observed, with older age, men, and Black adults at increased risk.”

A 90% diagnosis rate for a newborn medical condition impacting multiple organs simultaneously would seem to beg for deep, deliberate, comprehensive reflection within the medical community — the kind of sweeping mobilization of resources seen during Operation Warp Speed — to ferret out root causes, which in other contexts, like mass migration, the likes of the Karamel-uh entity are exceptionally curious about.

…Unless, of course, true healthcare isn’t the overriding objective of the brand of institutionalized, corporatized “healthcare” championed by the governing authorities and industry.

One doesn’t require an epidemiology degree to get the sense that whatever is triggering functional meltdowns in multiple organs at once in 90% of a population is probably something coming from a source ubiquitous in the environment, like the food supply, or the water, or the tip of a syringe filled with a certain experimental gene therapy — or all three at once.

Yet — and you’ll be shocked to learn this — perusing all of the literature on CMK pushed out by mainstream outlets and medical organizations like the AMA, there is a palpable lack of interest in asking fundamental questions.

What they are interested in, and what we can expect coming down the pipeline, is new patented drugs for CMK to the great ecstasy of Pfizer and Merck shareholders.

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is anathema to the industry’s business model, so what we get is the inverse paradigm.
*
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
https://armageddonprose.substack.com/p/mysterious-brand-new-heart-syndrome

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs.

Doctors Were Bribed to Push Covid Shots

Top Cardiologist Blows Whistle: Doctors Were Bribed to Push Covid Shots
Frank Bergman
May 12, 2024

One of the world’s leading cardiologists has blown the whistle to alert the public to a bribery scheme that led to doctors everywhere pushing Covid mRNA shots onto their patients.

Renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough recently revealed startling figures to highlight this bribery scheme.

The figures expose the staggering earnings that doctors received for pushing the experimental injections.

Speaking during an appearance on the “Tommy T Podcast,” McCullough explained how t a typical doctor could earn huge bonuses if they injected a substantial portion of their patients.

More specifically, if a doctor injected 75% of his or her patients at $250 per newly injected person, that would end up being around $250,000.

This revelation was discovered through a leaked Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield document.

McCullough explained that a full-time primary care physician typically manages a patient panel ranging from about 1,000 to 2,000 people covered by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Factoring in the incentive, 1,000 newly vaccinated patients, at $250 per person, equates to a $250,000 bonus for the doctor.

    REPORT: Dr. Peter McCullough tells Tommy T that doctors were BRIBED to push the COVID vaccines.

    A typical doctor could make an extra $250,000 if they injected 75% of their patients.

    This was discovered through a leaked Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield document.

    The question is,… pic.twitter.com/iANBzBB59A

    — The Vigilant Fox ?? (@VigilantFox) May 12, 2024

Some doctors made less; some made more, depending on how many patients they injected.

However, doctors were financially incentivized to inject as many patients as possible, despite the risks to public health.

The question is, was Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield incentivizing doctors?

Or, were they being paid to do so by the federal government?

The comments from McCullough come amid a flood of whistleblowers speaking out about the mass vaccination campaign.

Earlier this week, a Pfizer insider leaked documents showing that the pharmaceutical giant offered “separate” doses of vaccines to employees and elites.

As Slay News reported, the documents assure those offered the special injection that it is “distinct” from the shots given to the general public.

“The vaccine doses to be used for this program are separate and distinct from those committed by Pfizer to governments around the world,” a Pfizer email to high-level employees reads.

Meanwhile, another Pfizer whistleblower put out a video statement to confirm that she is “not suicidal.”

Former Pfizer employee Melissa McAtee issued the warning following the recent sudden deaths of two Boeing whistleblowers.

McAtee leaked internal Pfizer emails alleging the use of human fetal tissue-derived cell lines in mRNA vaccine lab tests.

She also alerted the public about concerns regarding vaccine ingredients and their links to injuries and deaths.

Additionally, Bill Gates’ former vaccine advisor has issued a red alert to the public, warning that a “wave” of “unprecedented death” is about to “decimate” the Covid-vaccinated.

As Slay News reported, former Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation scientist Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche warned that populations around the world will soon experience a “completely unprecedented” plunge.

Bossche predicts that the death toll will be “up to 30-40% in highly vaccinated countries.”

“What we will see is something completely, completely unprecedented in terms of the magnitude of the wave of morbidity and unfortunately mortality that we will see,” he warned.

Australia: ABC-RMIT FactCheck is a Scam

Australia: ABC-RMIT FactCheck is a Scam
By Rhoda Wilson on August 16, 2022

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“ABC”) and RMIT University might well be a match made in heaven.  Or, more likely, hell.  These two Covid State acolyte institutions, beyond-woke corporates both, true believers in the climate hysteria and, ironically, servants of Big Pharma, have teamed up to form a fact-checking outfit.

By Paul Collits

This ABC-RMIT scam, the so-called “Fact Check”, consists of seven elements:

    It is essentially ideological, that is, it only selectively and very carefully investigates certain viewpoints on certain issues deemed to be counter to its own priorities;
    Its principal purpose is narrative maintenance;
    Its method is to cherry-pick what it takes to be soft targets and weakly stated arguments, so avoiding the heavy hitters among its opponents, many of whom have published counter-narratives in peer-reviewed journals;
    Its activities are wrapped in the language of “fact-checking”, which in turn is given life by the allegation of “fake news” that is abroad;
    It receives cover for its activities by virtue of the (farcical) veneer of university “independence” and scholarship;
    It draws upon a plentiful and easily accessible band of tame, on-side academics to bolster the case studies;
    It rubbishesopposing viewpoints (with a veneer of scholarship) as but one tactic among several in the overall exercise, the other tactics being to ignore or to silence such viewpoints (through censorship, de-platforming, cancel culture, shadow banning, bullying, threats and so on).

This is very, very clever stuff.  It is also thinly disguised propaganda.  Using methods of which Joseph Goebbels, the CIA and Edward Bernays, the godfather of marketing, would be proud.  Redolent of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

These two Covid State activists were out of the blocks pretty smartly – in March 2020, in fact.  Almost as if they were ready for the “pandemic”.  Knew it was coming, even.  And realised its potential for furthering their shared agendas.  Perhaps they were tipped off by Brett Sutton’s sister-in-law, Jane Halton, Australia’s pandemicist-in-chief, who attended Bill Gates’ October 2019 pandemic planning “hypothetical” (Event 201).  The Covid State, is, after all, highly inter-connected.  (A little like the Get Pell team which is now revving up again).

Here is the stated rationale for the ABC-RMIT Fact Check machine:

    With the world in the grip of an unprecedented health crisis, RMIT ABC Fact Check is launching CoronaCheck to ensure that the information we share is accurate and fact-based.

    Fact-checking during the pandemic, RMIT Australia, 26 March 2020

Unprecedented?  I think not, as almost anyone apart from Professor Pantsdown, Neil Ferguson, and Anthony Fauci now recognises.  Indeed, some of us recognised it from the start.

Ruther reading: The Establishment’s Crisis, Paul Collits, 25 March 2020

We are not in the midst of a health crisis, and we never were.  We have been in the midst of an economic and liberal-democratic crisis brought about by a cabal of committed and focused globalists, useful idiot politicians here and abroad, committed medical fascism practitioners embedded in government bureaucracies, corporates, universities and media, and clueless punters who love nothing more than a pretend crisis and the excitement it generates in their otherwise dull lives.  Not to mention the fresh opportunities for virtue signalling and lording it over the deplorables and dissidents.

That an institution supposedly dedicated to rigour in research could make such a claim only weeks into WuFlu is breathtaking.  It suggests RMIT and the ABC were dusting off their ideological weaponry for the next opportunity to advance the cause of what CJ Hopkins calls “GloboCap”, and what we know simply to be the ruling class elite.

Sitting astride this very peculiar collaboration with our ABC is RMIT’s FactLab:

    RMIT FactLab is a research hub dedicated to debunking misinformation online and developing critical awareness about its origins and spread. The hub also conducts original research into the digital news ecosystem.

    RMIT FactLab is devoted to social media verification, research and education. It brings together the best of quality journalism and academic excellence to build awareness of the damaging impact of bad information. With misinformation on the rise worldwide, it is engaged in building tools and strategies to combat the viral spread of misleading and false information on social media platforms.

    RMIT FactLab also works hand in hand with RMIT ABC Fact Check, a partnership between RMIT University and the ABC which focuses on fact-checking claims by public figures.

    RMIT FactLab

I should disclose that I spent some years working at RMIT, years that I will never get back.  I should also mention that I have previously taken to task my former colleague, David Hayward, for his (probably willful, and certainly sloppy) misstatements – putting it kindly – about Covid vaccinations and related matters.

Further reading: Academics without intellect – but plenty of cash, Paul Collits, 8 December 2021

Fact-checking Covid claims seems to be a preoccupation of both RMIT and of the ABC.  In their latest investigation, they are picking on, of all people, the NSW Premier, Dominic Perrottet, for his reported recent, off-the-cuff claims about the relative seriousness of Covid and influenza.  Here is what he said:

    NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet has warned this winter’s strain of influenza can be more severe than Covid 19 – as he calls for Australia to review the seven-day pandemic isolation rule.

    During an interview with 2GB’s Ben Fordham on Monday, Mr Perrottet argued the current strain of influenza was ‘more severe than the current strains of Covid’ but, under the country’s health rules, Australians must self-isolate for seven days after infection with the virus.
    Dominic Perrottet warns the flu is more severe than the current strain of Covid-19 – and says it’s time for the government to review the seven-day isolation rule, Daily Mail, 18 July 2022

So, the claim was the current flu is worse than the current (Omicron) Covid strain.  A seemingly reasonable thing to have said, in support of a quite reasonable policy action to have taken.  That the ABC and RMIT sought to challenge Perrottet says three things.

First, these anything-but-scholarly-and-intellectually-robust institutions will go to any lengths to keep the fear campaign over Covid lapping along.  It simply cannot be allowed to be walked back by the useful Covid idiots that run the country, but who, collectively, sense growing public ennui over the CCP virus.  Despite the persistently high cases, hospitalisations and deaths.  Among a highly vaccinated population, it needs to be said (over and over again).  In short, the tough rules should never be loosened, even marginally.  They should be tightened!  This is all part of an attempt by the medical industrial complex to bring back the masks and the distancing and, no doubt, the lockdowns.  Alas, for them, the useful idiots are in election or pre-election mode, and plan to stay that way.  We even have a unity ticket now between non-natural allies Perrottet and Mr Lockdown himself, Daniel Andrews.

Second, RMIT and the ABC are paid-up members of the Covid State, and all that it connotes.  Public duty over individual self-concern.  Coercion over choice.  Big government over freedom.  The establishment over Covid dissidents, outliers like (to them) the abominable Christensen and Craig Kelly, and, as they no doubt would have it “conspiracy theorists”.  The surveillance state over individual rights.  Social credit to come, no doubt.  Scientism turbo-charged.  Use of the Covid State methods to enact climate clampdowns.  The corporate ideologies of the ABC and of RMIT align splendidly with the current iteration of the administrative state and of the emerging globalist clerisy.  They want us all to “build back better” and to embrace the new normal.  They are fully on board with the medical Reich.  They cheer on the silencing and cancelling of heterodox views, the censorship practised daily by social media companies.  Indeed, RMIT has partnered with the parent company of Facebook and Instagram (Meta) to join in the censorship, the lying about and the bullying of opponents.  Remember, this is a university doing this.  The ABC and RMIT are, clearly, two institutions (among many, alas) that wish to embrace Rahm Emanuel’s strategy of never letting a crisis go to waste.

And third, RMIT and the ABC have always been, and remain, fundamentally committed to activist journalism.  To describe whatthey are doing as “fact-checking” is to stretch the meaning of that phrase way beyond what it will bear.

Some recent examples of the things that RMIT chooses to fact-check give the ideological game away:

    Survey suggests a short-term link between vaccines and periods, but no need for alarm.

Nothing to see here, then.  Despite masses of evidence to the contrary, from all over the planet.  Speaking of the planet, then there is the “unprecedented” climate “emergency” that has attracted the snoops at RMIT:

    No, polar bear numbers haven’t exploded.

It is safe to keep lamenting the decline of polar bear numbers, due, ahem, to global warming and melting icecaps.

Then there was this:

    Mark Latham says 13,699 NSW teachers are not allowed to teach because of vaccine mandates. Verdict: Mr Latham’s claim is misleading.

Oh, then there are Safe Schools:

    Safe Schools program does not require primary school kids to discuss explicit sexual matters with parents.

No, nothing to worry about there.  Dangerous Covid jabs?  Nope, all is safe and fit-for-purpose:

    Former AFL stars wrongly suggest heart issues going ‘through the roof’ due to COVID jabs.

The causes of the current global inflation?

    Facebook posts claiming the war in Ukraine “is not the reason” for higher petrol prices are false.

Protecting the Covid narrative, indirectly.  Clever stuff.  Excess deaths and vaccines?

    Covid-19 vaccinations have not caused excess deaths among American millennials.

We simply must not let the obvious connections between the two seep into the public consciousness.

I imagine readers are getting the drift?

I am guessing that the good fact-checkers of the RMIT-ABC industrial complex are not going to be investigating, say, the increase in suicides as a result of lockdowns under Daniel Andrews, or the decline in fertility and increase in stillbirths following vaccinations, unless, of course, it was to debunk any claims along these lines, or the impact of lockdowns on the educational progress of children, or the impact of abortion on the wellbeing of women who have had “terminations”, or the extent of patriarchy and sex abuse in remote Indigenous communities, or the veracity of Tim Flannery’s prediction some years back that the dams would never fill again.  No, I do not think the RMIT fact-checkers and their ABC mates ever venture from their ideological lane. The old left – the good old left, you might say – used to rail against the capitalist state and the capitalist media for the things left off the agenda as well as the bias in choosing things to report.  Now, we have alleged scholars and researchers at mainline universities committing the same sins that the old left correctly abhorred.  Debunking misinformation, they claim.  Mostly, they are taking on straw men.  Sorry, straw persons.  Or attributing claims to ideological opponents that the latter never made.  Apart from the utter arrogance of the language used – as if complex scientific and social phenomena and inherently controversial debates can simply be reduced to “misinformation” to be “debunked” – we should be alarmed by the very nature of this task.

Here is another headline from one of RMIT FactLab’s recent “investigations”, again germane to the Covid State: ‘No, Bill Gates does not plan to depopulate the earth with vaccinations’.

What on earth is RMIT doing defending Bill Gates?  And defending him, specifically, against the quite plausible claim that this vaccine guru and son-of-a-eugenicist who has publicly endorsed a 15 per cent reduction in the world’s population aspires to using vaccinations to reduce the earth’s population?   Who champions vaccines that do not work as claimed, are not needed by most people (the young and the healthy) and are dangerous, indeed, lethal, for many who take the jab.  Experimental vaccines that have been linked to tens of thousands of deaths and whose rollout has coincided with an uptick in excess non-Covid deaths in many countries.

Further reading: The Murdoch Media and the Pandemic of the Vaccinated, Paul Collits

Fact-check that, RMIT!

There are two reasons for this otherwise bizarre defence of a gazillionaire by an institution direct from central socialist casting.  One, RMIT is totally on board with pro-vaxx stances.  And two, RMIT, like every second university and media organisation in the world, is a recipient of Gates’ financial largesse.  Most Australian university-based medical research institutes, including many whose “experts” are routinely wheeled out to defend this or that Covid State policy, has received funding from Gates.  Often for vaccine research.

This is what Gates funded RMIT to do: To test whether infant footprints captured by low-tech mobile phone cameras could provide a biometric identification system for use in immunisation programs.

Good grief.  Where to start in being alarmed about what is going on, under the radar, in Australian medical research and plans for a bio-digital future?

Some years back, Gates set out to create and fund a “decade of vaccines”.  He has just about doubled his wealth over this time while actively contributing, nay, leading, the global charge to vaccinate the whole planet.  His ultimate dream.  Talk about win-win.

That two Australian, publicly funded institutions explicitly set up to seek the truth and to do it in robust ways are behaving like out-of-control schoolchildren should cause alarm among taxpayers, to say the very least.  This is a case of grotesque mission creep, on our dime.  By ignoring the really big stories of our time, they are merely engaged in narrative protection on behalf of their favourite victim groups and causes.  It is all a travesty of the scholarship to which our universities once aspired.

The Conservative Woman’s Laura Perrins describes the British Broadcasting Corporation as a “vaccine propaganda machine” and its approach to the subject as “patronising, selective and abusive”.  She might have been describing the ABC’s approach on this and many other subjects.  That an Australian university should get into bed with such an outfit, whose attitudes and methods are known to all, bespeaks a worldview that brings shame on all of our higher education institutions.  This is nothing but a blatant attempt at propaganda by two institutions that once upon a time would each have had a modicum of intellectual curiosity, and been outraged and appalled by this kind of behaviour and by what they have become.  Not only that, there is the utter irony.  That two bastions of leftist ideology would be reduced to defending billionaires against society’s “excluded”?  Once, they prided themselves on speaking “truth to power”.  Today, the activities of the media and the academy side with the powerful and abandon truth.  Indeed, they seek to crush the truth.

Clever, yes.  Noble and principled, no.

However, rather than simply lamenting what has become theexpected behaviour of these two scions of the new left establishment, those on the right of politics and culture and in the sensible centre should be marching in the streets and demanding a royal commission into the role in the last two years of the legacy media, including the public broadcaster, and its Covid State allies in the academy in destroying freedom, rights, social relations, the polis and the economy through its policies of what Matt Desmet calls “mass formation”.

As The Brownstone Institute notes in relation to the American media:

    The media, both traditional and social media, had an outsized role during the pandemic in pushing the US government’s Covid response and defending the resulting coercive measures, including lockdowns, school closures, mask and vaccine mandates while ignoring collateral damage and treating sceptics of these measures as having bad motivations. Their result was a one-sided, often factually misleading or unsubstantiated narrative on important issues concerning science, economics, and health, for the better part of two years.

    This has had a chilling effect on information flows and journalism, and it dramatically distorted public understanding in many areas from science to health to economics to the proper role of media in a free society. A consequence of this shift in the ethos of the media, trust has declined dramatically to only 16% of the total population with trust in papers and only 11% with trust in TV, with partisan differences in the way people answer pollsters.

    In addition, cancellation and censorship have been institutionalised in legacy media culture in a way that has been injurious to the free exchange of ideas as well and public health messaging in general.

    Articles of Inquiry: The Role of Media, Brownstone Insitute, 22 July 2022

To which we might well add to this tawdry outcome the degrading in the culture of the academy.

Perhaps RMIT might fact-check the secular decline in trust in the media.  This once august institution might then learn why we are not that impressed by its recent efforts.  As with other institutions of higher education, RMIT’s original purpose was to build knowledge in our society, to “cultivate minds” as per its original motto, dating from 1887.  “Perita manus, mens exculta”.  RMIT’s fall from excellence has been precipitate, and this cute, cheap trick of creating a FactLab provides further, compelling evidence of the nature and steepness of the decline.

The saddest thing of all is that few other Australian universities are any better.  They have been allies-in-chief of the tyrannical regimes across this wide brown land, regimes that have crushed our nation since the outbreak of what Alex Berenson has called “pandemia”, in early 2020.  Institutions in search of the truth and seeking to defend both freedom of speech and the rights of the powerless would have a lifetime of awful primary material through which to sift if they so chose.  Instead, they prefer charades, circuses and pantos.

About the Author

Paul Collits is a freelance writer and independent scholar and researcher who lives in New South Wales, Australia.  His recent writings on ideology, conservatism, politics, religion, culture, education and police corruption have been published in such journals as Quadrant, News Weekly and The Spectator Australia.

The above is an article titled ‘The ABC, RMIT University and the Fact Checker Industrial Complex’ authored by Collits. You can subscribe and follow Collits on his Substack.

Pfizer employees received a “separate and distinct” COVID-19 vaccine

SPECIAL JABS: Pfizer employees received a “separate and distinct” COVID-19 vaccine, according to leaked Pfizer email
Lance D Johnson
05/14/2024

It’s now evident that multiple experiments were conducted on the global population under the pretense of “vaccination.” A Pfizer whistleblower leaked a company email explicitly stating that the COVID-19 vaccines offered to Pfizer employees were “separate and distinct” from the COVID-19 vaccines offered to the general public. The email, dated January 8, 2021, addresses Pfizer employees and contractors at Pfizer’s Pearl River research site in Rockland County, New York.

The email begins: “I am pleased to inform you that we will begin offering COVID-19 vaccinations to eligible on-site essential colleagues and contractors over the next several weeks.”

“Eligible on-site essential contractors will be notified, either by e-mail or by their Pfizer sponsor, and will receive instructions for registering for an on-site appointment as well. The vaccine doses to be used for this program are separate and distinct from those committed by Pfizer to governments around the world and will not impact supply to national governments in any way,” the email read.

Federal government dehumanized individuals to conduct multiple vaccine experiments

Since the beginning of totalitarian lockdowns, human beings were divided into “essential” and “non-essential” groups – their rights reduced to privileges contingent on dictatorial decrees. As experimental COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out in warp speed, governments further dehumanized individuals and categorized people into priority groups. Governments used social status to divide people into collective study groups so that they could be experimented on at different times and with different batches of “vaccine.”

Since then, independent investigators have analyzed the data on adverse events from the individual batches, as reported by batch number in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). It turns out that certain batches of the COVID-19 vaccine are more toxic and more lethal than others.

This data has provided more evidence for a conspiracy alleging that vaccine companies like Pfizer, Moderna and Jansen conducted several vaccine batch experiments on the population (with varying toxicity), all within the grander experiment that was advertised as “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccines. Now, there is new evidence that Pfizer reserved a “separate and distinct” batch of COVID-19 vaccines for the people who worked for and contracted with the company.

In the leaked Pfizer email, those eligible for the “separate and distinct” COVID-19 vaccine lot had to be “site-essential colleagues.” The email explained that these colleagues and contractors must be based at Pfizer Global Supply and at Pfizer’s Worldwide Research, Development and Medical/Global Product Development sites. Furthermore, these employees and contractors were ordered to get the vaccine specifically at a Pfizer location “to ensure supply of our medicines and vaccines, critical research and development programs continue.”

Specifically, the email reads: “Once the specific dates for our site have been identified, we will share a more detailed plan and each eligible on-site essential colleague will receive an e-mail from Colleague Wellness (formerly known as Occupational Health & Wellness) with instructions for registering for an on-site appointment to receive your vaccination.”

Pfizer employees confess that they received different COVID-19 vaccine than the rest of the population

In an interview with Infowars, the Pfizer whistleblower said they knew that Pfizer employees were receiving either a placebo or a different formula. “I know we employees at Pfizer were receiving different vaccines and/or placebos and this was the word around my site when I worked there,” the whistleblower said. This finding coincides with testimony before the Australian government. At a Senate hearing, Pfizer representatives said the company provided a specific batch of COVID-19 shots for its workers.

“Your vaccine mandate was using your own batch of vaccine, especially imported for Pfizer, which was not tested by the TGA (Australia’s medicine regulator). Is that correct?” Senator Malcolm Roberts asked the Pfizer representatives.

“Senator, so, Pfizer undertook to import a batch of vaccine specifically for the employee vaccination program,” one of the representatives replied.

If a specific vaccine batch was reserved for Pfizer and its associates, then the company knew that there were different batches with different risk profiles. The next investigation must find out the differences in these batches and what drove Pfizer to reserve a specific batch for their employees and contractors. It could be that Pfizer tested out different levels of antigen/lipid nano-particles/mRNA/spike protein and reserved placebos for themselves without the consent of the public.

Robots from the Past...

Two milestones are upon us that reflect the enduring human fascination with the idea of artificial counterparts—robots. The year 2019 marks the 500th anniversary of the death of Italian scientist-artist Leonardo da Vinci, whose designs and models of humanoid robots still inspire experts in robotics and Artificial Intelligence (ai). The year 2020 marks the centennial of the term robot itself, coined by Czech playwright Karel Čapek to describe artificial humans who could serve as a new class of workers.

Yet the ancestry of robots reaches back much further, to Egypt of the Pharaohs, classical Greece and the Islamic world of the early Middle Ages, upon which da Vinci based the development of some of his creations.

Robots of Ages Past

Written by Robert W. Lebling

AramcoWorld

Nov/Dec 2019

Today, smart is no longer a word used exclusively for people. From cars to vacuum cleaners to fully automated factories, robots—or programmable machines that accomplish tasks generally reserved for humans—are increasingly ubiquitous. Some are ai-enabled refrigerators that can order food for you; some are “digital assistants” such as Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri. Others are humanoid, such as Sophia, designed by Hanson Robotics with a face modeled on mid-20th-century actor Audrey Hepburn and equipped with ai and facial recognition to interact with humans. (In 2017 Sophia became the first robot ever to be granted national citizenship—by Saudi Arabia.)

Eventually, some futurists expect that some robots will look more and more like us, having synthetic skin and hair, individual (or not) faces and bodies. They will increasingly become androids, or virtual humans. Others will remain disembodied but capable of complex tasks (“Alexa, if it’s raining this afternoon, arrange a ride for the kids from school.”) And ever since the dystopic Metropolis in 1927, movies and television have asked whether robots would someday try to overthrow us (Bladerunner; The Terminator; I, Robot; Ex Machina) or whether they would be nice and helpful (Commander Data of Star Trek: The Next Generation; C3PO and R2D2 of Star Wars)?

Surprisingly, our ideas about robots being so futuristic are built on ones that began long, long before electric circuits and computer processors. The field of robotics began centuries — millennia—before the digital era. Ancient Egyptians built automatons that gave not just form but motion and voice to deities. Greeks speculated in early biotech. Muslims of the medieval scientific Golden Age devised complex automatons that helped inspire the drawings and designs of Renaissance polymaths like da Vinci.

Around the world, animated statues and automatons have appeared in early legends from the Americas to Africa to east Asia, often as minions or representatives of gods. And of these, the most influential to our world today were those that began in Egypt, in the second millennium BCE. 

This woodblock print shows the workings of a tea-serving automaton. It appears in Japan's oldest manuscripts of mechanical engineering, the 1796 treatise Kiko zui (Illustrated Compendium of Clever Machines) by Hosokawa Hanzo Yorinao. Other pages detail the structure and the construction of clocks and mechanical dolls.

French Egyptologist Gaston Maspero (1846–1916) tells us the Egyptians had “speaking statues,” images of their deities, made of painted or gilded wood with jointed limbs and voices operated by temple priests. The statues responded to questions and sometimes made lengthy speeches. One statue in the temple of Amun in Thebes was said to raise its arm and select the next pharaoh from among male members of the royal family. Maspero tells us the priests saw themselves as intermediaries between gods and mortals, and they firmly believed the souls of divinities inhabited the statues and guided them in producing voices and movements.

Asim Qureshi, an Oxford-educated tech entrepreneur who writes about the history of engineering, notes that Egyptians of that time “had enough knowledge of mechanics to develop a non-digitized [robotic] machine based on a system of ropes and pulleys.”  

This Egyptian tradition appears to have passed north across the Mediterranean to Greece, where it infused myths and legends—and eventually science. Ian Rutherford, classics professor at the University of Reading, points out that “Egyptians and Greeks are known to have been in contact already in the second millennium bce, though we don’t know much about it. The picture becomes clearer from about 600 bce, when the sea-faring Greeks were frequent visitors to Egypt.”

Greek intellectuals of the day developed a solid understanding of Egyptian culture, according to Rutherford: “[They] saw it as a source of knowledge and esoteric wisdom. Some of them believed that Egypt had influenced Greece in the distant past; for the historian Herodotus, Greek religion was mostly an Egyptian import.”

In his Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices, al-Jazari used a wire, spring and pulley to put the arms of this humanoid elephant driver in motion as part of his design of a clock.

Perhaps the oldest Greek tale involving ai and robotic figures is Homer’s eighth-century epic about the Trojan War, the Iliad. The inventor Hephaestus, god of metalworking, creates intelligent female automatons, made of gold, to assist him in his forge: “In them is understanding in their hearts, and in them speech and strength, and they know cunning handiwork.”

In the fourth century bce, Apollonius of Rhodes penned the Argonautica, the epic poem about Jason and the Argonauts, in which Hephaestus constructs a giant bronze automaton named Talos to protect Zeus’s beloved Europa from pirates on the island of Crete. Talos—in effect a “killer robot”—patrolled the beaches of Crete, circling the island three times a day.

Greek mythological notions of robots evolved into more-detailed (and practical) engineering concepts. Greek scientists and inventors developed techniques for simulating the actions of the human body. 

Greek inventor Ctesibius of Alexandria, in the third century bce, pioneered compressed-air and hydraulic devices. He built an automaton operated by cams, or rotating mechanical links that transform rotary motion into linear motion. His robotic statue could stand and sit, and was used in processions. Though Ctesibius’s writings have not survived, later inventors and engineers adopted and improved upon his techniques.

Inventor Philo of Byzantium, who died around 220 bce, was known as “Mechanicus” for his engineering skills. His book Compendium of Mechanics describes a female robotic servant that could mix different liquids to make a drink when a cup was placed in her hand.

In the first century ce, Hero of Alexandria was influenced by Philo. He designed vending machines, automatic doors and an early steam-powered mechanism called the aeolipile, developed 1,700 years before James Watt’s engine, which used steam ejected through angled nozzles on a metal sphere to set the globe spinning. In his treatise On Automaton-Making, Hero describes an automated puppet theater that employs a combination of weights, axles, levers, pulleys and wheels to enact an entire stage play. A programmable robotic cart carried other robots on stage to perform for the audience. Falling weights pulled ropes wrapped around the cart’s two independent axles. Noel Sharkey, professor of ai and robotics at the University of Sheffield, compares this control system to modern-day binary programming.

Driven by a water wheel, al-Jazari used a piston rod to create suction and pump water.

The collapse of the Roman Empire and onset of Europe’s so-called “Dark Ages” created an atmosphere in which fantastic tales spread. Among them were stories of lost Roman treasure, hidden in hoards buried beneath hills and guarded by golden automatons. 

These European stories were echoed later in an Arabic version, “The City of Brass,” an adventure tale in the One Thousand and One Nights. In this story—based on a historical account by Ibn al-Faqih—a military expedition sent by the Umayyad caliph finds an abandoned, walled city in the deserts of northwest Africa. With its lofty walls of brass, the city was reputedly built by King Solomon, and it was once a thriving capital until struck by an unknown catastrophe: All the inhabitants died, and they were mummified where they fell. The city’s beautiful queen, embalmed and dressed in elegance, was seated on her throne and guarded by two sword-bearing automatons. When an explorer tried to remove the queen’s jewels from her body, the automatons came to life, beat the man and beheaded him.

As Bryn Mawr historian E. R. Truitt describes in Medieval Robots (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), it was first the Byzantines and then the Arabs who preserved the mechanical arts in the Middle East following the fall of Rome. Around 850 ce, three Mespotamian brothers known as Banu Musa published The Book of Ingenious Devices, an illustrated work with designs of about 100 automated devices, including a water-powered organ.  The Banu Musa, or “Sons of Musa,” were Ahmad, Muhammad and Hasan ibn Musa ibn Shakir, brothers from Khorasan who worked in Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom), Abbasid Baghdad’s great center of higher learning. While their book did not deal with humanoid automatons, many of the technologies and automatic controls they developed were adopted and refined by Abu al-‘Izz ibn Isma’il ibn Razzaz al-Jazari, a towering engineering talent of the 12th-century CE.

Constructed in the late 18th century by inventor Baron Wolfgang von Kempelen and known simply as The Turk, this life-size, chess-playing automaton was actually a mechanical illusion that allowed a person skilled in the game to control the motion. As a result, The Turk defeated many challengers—among them Benjamin Franklin and Napoleon Bonaparte.

Between the time of Banu Musa and al-Jazari, Arab and Islamic science flourished. A few manuscripts by the Banu Musa and al-Jazari have survived, but for many other engineering accomplishments, we must rely on accounts by historians, travelers and visiting diplomats.

Robotic achievements building on the works of Alexandrian scientists continued in Egypt during the Islamic period. One historical account tells us about 12th-century Fatimid vizier al-Afdal Shahanshah, whose guest hall featured eight robotic statues of singing girls, four made of camphor and four of amber, clad in fashionable clothing and jewelry. When the vizier stepped into the chamber, the statues bowed; when he sat down, they straightened up. This report, by Ayyubid historian Ibn Muyasser, is preserved in the writings of another Egyptian historian, al-Maqrizi.

The evolution of automatons grew in engineering sophistication over the ages, from the simple temple statues of ancient Egypt, employing basic levers and ropes for moving limbs and tubes for speaking from hidden locations, to the Greek robots, which used hydraulics, compressed air and basic cams to move body parts, to the automatons of the medieval Islamic world, which enabled more realistic movement with sophisticated cams, camshafts and even crankshafts, as well as advanced hydraulics and pneumatics.

An early cam was built into Hellenistic water-driven automatons from the third century bce. Both cam and camshaft would later appear in al-Jazari’s robotic creations. The cam and camshaft began appearing in European mechanisms in the 14th century.

A cutaway diagram reconstructing Kempel's machine explains the mechanics of the torso and arm—ultimately a device of not-so-remote control that gave the appearance of an intelligent automaton.

The crankshaft, the next stage in this technology, translates rotary into linear motion, and it is essential to much of today’s machinery, including the automobile’s internal combustion engine. Acknowledged as one of the most important mechanical inventions ever, the crankshaft was created by al-Jazari to raise water for irrigation while he served as chief engineer of the Atuqid dynasty. Written in 1206, al-Jazari’s Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices includes developments in the use of pistons and valves, as well as some of the first mechanical clocks driven by water and weights.

“It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of al-Jazari’s work in the history of engineering,” says Donald R. Hill, English historian and translator of al-Jazari. “The impact of these inventions can be seen in the later designing of steam engines and internal combustion engines, paving the way for automatic control and other modern machinery. The impact of al-Jazari’s inventions is still felt in modern contemporary mechanical engineering.”

As a result, some historians call al-Jazari the “father of modern-day engineering.” Salim al-Hassani of the University of Manchester, who chairs the Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation, notes that al-Jazari’s invention of an early programmable robot qualifies him further as “the father of robotics.”

Roboticist Mark Rosheim reconstructed Leonardo da Vinci's robotic knight, here shown on display in Berlin. Rosheim used fragments of sketches in da Vinci's Codex Atlanticus. Through sophisticated arrangements of pulleys and cables, the robot-like "knight" was designed to sit, stand and maneuver its arms. 

The Islamic world’s robotic designs found their way west to Europe. “Throughout the Latin Middle Ages,” says historian Truitt, “we find references to many apparent anachronisms, many confounding examples of mechanical art. Musical fountains. Robotic servants. Mechanical beasts and artificial songbirds. Most were designed and built … in the cosmopolitan courts of Baghdad, Damascus, Constantinople and Karakorum. Such automata came to medieval Europe as gifts from foreign rulers, or were reported in texts by travelers to these faraway places.”

Western scientists of the Middle Ages pushed these engineering concepts even further. Today, their accomplishments sometimes reach us only through the filter of legend, where the technical overlaps with the preternatural.

A scene from the play showing three robots—so called by Czech playwright Karel Čapek to describe a new class of servant workers. 

Gerbert of Aurillac, a 10th-century French priest who studied science in Islamic Córdoba, was a pioneer in astronomical observation, introducing the armillary sphere and star sphere. He brought arithmetical calculation with the abacus and Arabic numerals to northern Europe. His scientific accomplishments resulted in legends that thrived a century after his death, including one claiming he had built a robot of sorts—a talking humanoid head—that could track celestial phenomena and foretell the future. Gerbert, a scientist and humanist long before the Renaissance, became the first Frenchman to head the Roman Catholic Church (999–1003 ce) , adopting the name Pope Sylvester ii.

Other medieval European scientists, too, were said to have created such “talking heads.” Scholars suspect the speaking-head concept originated in Arab folk tales. It became a powerful image in Europe and was linked in popular imagination with leading scientists such as Germany’s Albert the Great and England’s Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon.

"Robots" arrived on the world stage in 1920 with the publication of Čapek's R.U.R. (Rossum Universal Robots). Here, an illustration for Čapek's work, by Bedrich Feuerstein, promoted the play for its premiere on January 25, 1921. 

The tale of Bacon’s “brazen head” is the best known of these, and it was featured in Robert Greene’s 16th-century play, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay. Bacon made a human head of brass that could speak and function as an oracle. While the scientist slept, Bacon’s apprentice tried to question the brazen head. It spoke three times, saying, “Time is,” “Time was” and “Time is past.” It then fell to the floor, broken and evermore silent.

Al-Jazari’s influence among European Renaissance scientists was particularly visible in the work of da Vinci, who was fascinated by mechanisms of the human body and investigated ways of simulating actions of living beings. In 1495, he built a humanoid robot with pulleys and gears allowing it to move its arms and jaw, and to sit up and stand. The automaton, dressed as a knight in bulky German Italian armor, could also lift its visor, revealing its face and its moving jaw. Da Vinci’s robot employed a four-factor mechanical operating system integrated in its upper torso, and a separate three-factor system in the legs. It made its public debut at a gala event hosted by da Vinci’s patron, Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan.

Mark Rosheim, a us roboticist whose company develops robotic systems for nasa, built a working version of da Vinci’s automated knight in 2002 using da Vinci’s own drawings.

From the imagination of visionary inventors centuries ago to today's ai: Humanoid robot Sophia takes the stage to answer questions next to her creator, David Hanson, founder and ceo of Hanson Robotics, at the Moscow Innovative Development “Open Innovations 2017” conference. A few days later, Sophia became the first robot to be granted a national citizenship—by Saudi Arabia. She uses digital neural networking and conversational language processing to simulate human behavior and response. 

Rosheim says he was inspired in his youth by da Vinci. He developed a robotic serving cart from da Vinci’s sketches, which moved in programmable directions thanks to internal wooden cams. During a video interview in 2011, Rosheim revealed the workings of the cart in his company lab. Its intricate gears and cams not only served to transport viewers back to the 15th century, but also, for those familiar with al-Jazari’s influence on da Vinci, carried them even further back to the crucial Golden Age of Islamic science and engineering.

It was a tangible example of not only how far we have come, but also of how far back we go, to where the unexpected richness of our past seeds the unimaginable potential of our future.

Robert W. Lebling (lebling@yahoo.com) is a writer, editor and communication specialist who lives and works in Saudi Arabia. He is author of Legends of the Fire Spirits: Jinn and Genies from Arabia to Zanzibar (I.B. Tauris, 2010 & 2014), and he is co-author, with Donna Pepperdine, of Natural Remedies of Arabia (Stacey International, 2006). He is a regular contributor to AramcoWorld.