Tag Archives: corporate sponsorship

The Billionaires’ Plandemic

Posted on by

COVID Advances New World Order – The Empire of Billionaires

July 29, 2020

Dr. Mercola, Guest
Waking Times

The COVID-19 pandemic is being used to facilitate the efforts of a select few to create a one-world government with power concentrated in the hands of an elitist group of billionaires.

In March 2020, the United Nations New World Order (UNNWO) announced their annual International Day of Happiness global campaign, along with a call for solidarity and unity in the global fight against COVID-19.1 The campaign theme, according to UNNWO, was:2

“… a call on all 7.8 billion members of the global human family, and all 206 nations and territories of planet earth, to unite in solidarity, and steadfast resolve, in fighting back against the COVID 19 Coronavirus …”

 

 

While the UNNWO sustainability goals, such as addressing poverty, hunger, polluted waterways, and more, sound admirable,3 they rely on one-world government manipulations such as media censorship, mass surveillance of citizens and total governmental control of your health care decisions, as I will explain in detail in this article.

One clear example of the dangers of one-world initiatives is the World Health Organization’s Immunization Agenda 2030, in which the aim is to vaccinate everyone across the globe.4

Bill Gates of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a big WHO funder, has stated he intends to vaccinate the global population against COVID-19,5 and then track and monitor each person through digital surveillance.6 The Rockefeller Foundation also supports mass-tracking of the citizenry — all under the guise of “public health.”7 The reasoning for this is to stop the pandemic.

But, will a gigantic global disease surveillance system created under the pretext of COVID-19 be dismantled once the pandemic is declared over? Or, will it simply morph into other surveillance functions also presented as mechanisms to protect the “public health?”

Vaccine Mania Has Gripped the Nation

As the COVID-19 pandemic passed its six-month mark and the number of reported cases in some countries and states rose, the focus on a vaccine intensified, with numerous vaccine makers vying to be first with results.

That distinction came in mid-July, when the initial results from a clinical trial of a vaccine candidate developed by Moderna, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, received a positive write-up in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)8 and pleased Wall Street.9

What’s interesting is that Moderna has “never produced an approved vaccine or run a large trial,” according to Stat News. Yet, it seized the COVID-19 opportunity10 and forged ahead. When you think about it, though, the exuberance over the vaccine candidate is irrational.

First, as with all vaccines, adverse effects can and will sometimes occur. Even fiercely pro-vaccine advocates have expressed concerns about possible adverse effects of a hurried-up COVID-19 vaccine.

…

Another concern is that contact tracing and computer apps to determine the whereabouts and contacts of a person who may have been exposed are much too aggressive. For example, even if someone has no symptoms of COVID-19, governments, whether local or national, will have the ability to quarantine a person against their will, according to a YouTuber who recounts her contact tracing training in a video.15

Moreover, according to top legal scholar Alan Dershowitz,16 a 115-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows authorities to legally inoculate someone with a vaccine against their will for the purpose of safeguarding public health. On the other hand, they cannot do so if the vaccine is intended only to protect a person’s personal health, he says.

…

Media Matters Pushes Censorship of Vaccine Safety Groups

A smear piece from Media Matters, titled “The Most Notorious Anti-Vax Groups Use Facebook to Lay the Groundwork Against the Novel Coronavirus Vaccine,”19 lays the groundwork for discrediting the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Children’s Health Defense and Informed Consent Action Network. The article begins by casting such groups as a threat during COVID-19:20

“As novel coronavirus cases spike in the U.S. and numerous efforts are underway to develop a vaccine, the most prominent U.S. anti-vaccination organizations are using Facebook and other social media platforms to poison the well against a potential vaccine.”

Media Matters is angry that Facebook allows the groups’ social media communications to appear educational rather than branding them as “vaccine misinformation.” This is especially important, writes Media Matters, because support for vaccination among the general public is falling:21

…

Vaccination Is Becoming a Hard Sell

Media Matters cites a 2014 study published in the journal Pediatrics22 that identified four ways in which the desirability of vaccination is promoted and how none of the messages is working. The four attempts to “reduce vaccine misperceptions and increase vaccination rates for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)” were listed by the journal as:23

  • Information explaining the lack of evidence that MMR causes autism from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Textual information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by MMR from the Vaccine Information Statement
  • Images of children who have diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine
  • A dramatic narrative about an infant who almost died of measles from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet

…

Media Matters Has a Huge Influence on Mainstream Media

Media Matters’ initial $2 million in funding came from wealthy progressives via the Tides Foundation,28 with additional funding from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network, according to National Review.29 In 2010, George Soros, one of the richest people in the world, gave the group $1 million, according to The New York Times.30

The self-proclaimed “fact checking group,” founded by conservative-turned-progressive David Brock,31 states that its mission is to counteract conservative media, and it has been very successful.

…

COVID-19 and Vaccines Are a Pathway to Billionairehood

Forbes compiled a list of 10 health care billionaires who have profited since COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic. Topping the list was Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, whose vaccine candidate trial results were published by NEJM.38 According to Forbes:39

“When the WHO declared a pandemic, Bancel’s estimated net worth was some $720 million. Since then, Moderna’s stock has rallied more than 103%, lifting his fortune to an estimated $1.5 billion. A French citizen, Bancel first joined the billionaire ranks on April 2, when Moderna’s stock rose on the news that the firm was planning to begin phase two trials of its vaccine.”

Bancel is far from the only person who has become a “biotech billionaire” thanks to the lucrative development of COVID-19 vaccines, treatments and diagnostic tools solicited by governments and funded by taxpayers. Others include:40

1.Gustavo Denegri — With a net worth of $4.5 billion, Denegri has a 45% stake in the Italian biotech company DiaSorin.

2.Seo Jung-Jin — With a net worth of $8.4 billion, Jung-Jin co-founded Celltrion, a biopharma company in Seoul.

3.Alain Mérieux — With a net worth of $7.6 billion, Mérieux’s grandfather founded BioMérieux, a French multinational biotech company.

4.Maja Oeri — With a net worth of $3.2 billion, Oeri is a descendent of Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche, the founder of pharmaceutical giant Roche and owns about 5% of Roche’s shares.

5.Leonard Schleifer — With a net worth of $2.2 billion, Schleifer’s wealth is attributed to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which he co-founded.

6.George Yancopoulos — With a net worth of $1.2 billion, Yancopoulos is Regeneron’s chief scientific officer.

7.and 8. Thomas and Andreas Struengmann — With a net worth of $6.9 billion, the Struengmann twins sold their generic drug company Hexal to Novartis in 2005 and have other biotech investments.

9.Li Xiting — With a net worth of $12.6 billion, Xiting cofounded Mindray Medical International, China’s largest medical equipment producer.

Pandemic Profiteering Has Increased the Wealth Gap

…

The Empire of Billionaires Is a Threat to Public Safety

In summary, as biotech billionaires rush in to profit from the COVID-19 pandemic, your privacy rights are being violated through tracking and contact tracing, and your right to refuse a vaccine may be in jeopardy if it is deemed for the public good. At the same time the very media that should be promoting your right to free speech and to question government’s decisions for your body is advocating for having those rights taken away.

Through the pursuit of an artificial vaccine, natural immunity to viruses like COVID-19 will not occur and future pandemics are assured. But that means mass vaccination will have to be repeated over and over again, which is good news for the pandemic profiteers. But is it good for you?

from:    https://www.wakingtimes.com/2020/07/29/covid-advances-new-world-order-the-empire-of-billionaires/

(Check out link for expanded version of the article)

Whose Research Can You Trust?

Posted on by

Harvard’s Sugar Industry Scandal Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg

There’s a lot of junk science — and corporate sponsorship — out there.

09/13/2016 05:42 pm ET
Erin Schumaker Senior Healthy Living Editor, The Huffington Post

Zoonar/P.Malyshev via Getty Images

The sugar industry paid scientists to pad research to support its interests in the 1960s, according to a paper published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

Author Cristin Kearns University of California, San Francisco uncovered damning letters in the basement of Harvard University that revealed that two of the school’s most famous nutritionists collaborated with the sugar industry to downplay sugar’s role in coronary heart disease.

The collaboration “delayed the development of a scientific consensus on sugar-heart disease for decades,” coauthor Stanton Glantz, a professor at the UCSF, told STAT.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sugar industry group involved in the tainted research didn’t have much to say about its decades-old conflict of interest.

“It is challenging for us to comment on events that allegedly occurred 60 years ago, and on documents we have never seen,” the Sugar Association told Reuters in a statement. “The Sugar Association is always seeking to further understand the role of sugar and health, but we rely on quality science and facts to drive our assertions.”

It’s unsettling to reflect on how food policy and American diets were shaped by this faulty research, and sadly, it’s part of a larger trend. Food and beverage companies and trade organizations have long influenced scientists to produce results that bolster their companies’ profits, or to stifle research that failed to support their products’ health claims. Here are four other times the food and beverage industries fooled us with faulty or slanted science: 

1. Coca-Cola’s anti-obesity initiative

Perhaps the most laughable recent conflict of interest is Coca-Cola’s $1.5 million donation to start the nonprofit Global Energy Balance Network, designed to convince Americans that lack of exercise, not poor eating habits, is the root of the nation’s obesity crisis. (In reality, while exercise has many health benefits, it’s not considered to be the key cause of unhealthy weight gain in kids.)

“We partner with some of the foremost experts in the fields of nutrition and physical activity,” Coca-Cola said in a 2015 statement. “It’s important to us that the researchers we work with share their own views and scientific findings, regardless of the outcome, and are transparent and open about our funding.”

New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle felt differently. “The Global Energy Balance Network is nothing but a front group for Coca-Cola,” Nestle told The New York Times. “Coca-Cola’s agenda here is very clear: Get these researchers to confuse the science and deflect attention from dietary intake.”

2. Soda-funded studies more likely to report no link between soda and obesity

Studies with a financial conflict of interest, including research by PepsiCo and the American Beverage Association, were five times more likely than independent studies to report no correlation between drinking soda and weight gain and obesity, according to the journal Plos Medicine.

Research free from conflicts of interest has reached a far different conclusion. According to a 2013 study published in Circulation, sugary drinks aren’t just bad for your waistline, they cause preventable death and disability. In fact, the Circulation researchers attributed 184,000 deaths worldwide each year to diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer from sugar-sweetened beverages.

3. Candy companies research their own products

According to research backed by a trade association that represents Butterfingers, Hershey and Skittles, children who ate candy tended to be thinner than those who didn’t. Convenient, right?

The candy-funded study made the rounds in popular media before an Associated Press investigation uncovered emails indicating that candy industry ties likely influenced the study’s results.

“We’re hoping they can do something with it — it’s thin and clearly padded,” candy study researcher and Louisiana State University professor Carol O’Neil wrote to her coauthor in early 2011.

O’Neil would later tell the AP that she believed the full study to be “robust.”

4. Pom Wonderful’s bogus health claims

Pom Wonderful’s pomegranate juice packs a mean 32 grams of sugar in every 8-ounce serving, but the company has long promoted the product as a health food, and advertised it with slogans like “Cheat death” and “Drink to prostate health,” according to the New York Times.

In fact, Pom spent $34 million to fund pomegranate juice research and then spun the results to make the juice look like it prevented disease. The FTC filed a complaint against the the company for deceptive and misleading advertising in 2010.

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that Pom would have to include a randomized, well-controlled human clinical study for any future disease benefit claims. Pom’s founders appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to take the case and upheld the lower court’s ruling this May.

“We continue to stand behind our efforts to publicly convey valuable information about the health benefits of POM,” Steven Clark, a Pom spokesman, said in a statement.

Digging ourselves out of a half-century deep hole won’t be easy

This is an ongoing problem with no clear solution. Scientists need money to fund research and food companies are more than willing to provide it ― if that research yields results in line with corporate interests. As a result, Americans are swayed by industry studies and rightly confused by ever-changing nutrition guidelines.

Most frustrating of all is question the half-century-old conflict of interest raises: At this point, what research can we trust?

from:    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sugar-harvard-scandal-nutrition-study_us_57d8088ee4b0aa4b722c6417?section=us_healthy-living