# data[].attributes.body
Primer/Introductory Resources (foundational overviews, definitions, and accessible introductions): understandingwar.org understandingwar.org

• A Primer on Russian Cognitive Warfare (ISW, June 2025) by Nataliya Bugayova and Kateryna Stepanenko: Excellent starting point focused on Russian approaches, with clear definitions and strategic context. https://understandingwar.org/research/cognitive-warfare/a-primer-on-russian-cognitive-warfare/ (Full PDF available via the site). smallwarsjournal.com

• Cognitive Warfare – Introduction (360 ISR course overview): Short, practical intro to concepts and implications. https://www.360isr.com/course/cognitive-warfare-introduction 360isr.com

• What Is Cognitive Warfare and Why Does It Matter for You? (Greater Good Science Center, 2025): Accessible, non-technical explanation of the topic’s relevance. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_is_cognitive_warfare_and_why_does_it_matter_for_you greatergood.berkeley.edu

• Cognitive Warfare: Key Aspects (MP-IDSA Issue Brief, Aug 2025): Concise overview of genesis, evolution, and state actors (Russia/China). https://idsa.in/publisher/issuebrief/cognitive-warfare-key-aspects idsa.in

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/whos-trying-to-stop-america-from

# data[].attributes.headline
Once you start seeing Nudge and Sludge for what these two professors have trained others to do, it becomes easier to make informed consent (or dissent) to their manipulations

# data[].attributes.subject
Once you start seeing Nudge and Sludge for what these two professors have trained others to do, it becomes easier to make informed consent (or dissent) to their manipulations

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
@FiveTimesAugust Despite Nudge being one of the most toxic books I have ever read, I do believe understanding its contents are the key to understanding the cognitive dissonance that many of us felt during the Covid plandemic. This book and others like it have not only highly influenced how policy… https://t.co/NsOs9ILH3C https://t.co/WiPR0QHxFk

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
@FiveTimesAugust Despite Nudge being one of the most toxic books I have ever read, I do believe understanding its contents are the key to understanding the cognitive dissonance that many of us felt during the Covid plandemic. This book and others like it have not only highly influenced how policy… https://t.co/NsOs9ILH3C https://t.co/WiPR0QHxFk

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
funded by USAID? 🤔🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/MaWvypF2Qd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Despite Nudge being one of the most toxic books I have ever read, I do believe understanding its contents are the key to understanding the cognitive dissonance that many of us felt during the Covid plandemic. This book and others like it have not only highly influenced how policy… pic.twitter.com/WiPR0QHxFk
— White Rose Publications (@WhiteRosePub24) February 9, 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
@FiveTimesAugust Despite Nudge being one of the most toxic books I have ever read, I do believe understanding its contents are the key to understanding the cognitive dissonance that many of us felt during the Covid plandemic. This book and others like it have not only highly influenced how policy… https://t.co/NsOs9ILH3C https://t.co/WiPR0QHxFk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.includes.tweets[].text
funded by USAID? 🤔🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/MaWvypF2Qd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
@FiveTimesAugust Despite Nudge being one of the most toxic books I have ever read, I do believe understanding its contents are the key to understanding the cognitive dissonance that many of us felt during the Covid plandemic. This book and others like it have not only highly influenced how policy… https://t.co/NsOs9ILH3C https://t.co/WiPR0QHxFk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
@FiveTimesAugust Despite Nudge being one of the most toxic books I have ever read, I do believe understanding its contents are the key to understanding the cognitive dissonance that many of us felt during the Covid plandemic. This book and others like it have not only highly influenced how policy… https://t.co/NsOs9ILH3C https://t.co/WiPR0QHxFk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
funded by USAID? 🤔🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/MaWvypF2Qd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Most Devastating Report So Far ⋆ Brownstone Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The House report on HHS Covid propaganda is devastating. Biden administration pushed falsehoods about Covid vaccines, boosters, and masks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It benefits our government when people believe that the US Government does not use propaganda against its own people, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Five Eyes Alliance (FVEY) is a cooperative intelligence network that monitors citizens' and foreign governments' electronic communications. Furthermore, through the reciprocal spying and intelligence sharing terms and conditions of the FVEY, any barriers to domestic spying and propaganda activities that one of the FVEY intelligence agencies encounters can be circumvented by working with another member. The members of FVEY are the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. FVEY was formed after World War II to share intelligence among the five nations. FVEY is the oldest and most prominent of three related US-centric intelligence alliances. The Nine Eyes alliance includes the original five members of FVEY and Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Norway. It is considered the most comprehensive espionage alliance in recorded history.

FVEY originated in 1943; the U.S. and the U.K. formed a cooperative intelligence agreement -- a secret treaty known as the BRUSA Agreement. This was later formalized as the UKUSA Agreement, which expanded into the FVEY agreement, although there is evidence that the UKUSA agreement is still viable between just the US and the UK. In the next decade, Canada, Norway, Denmark, West Germany, Australia, and New Zealand were temporarily added to the UKUSA agreement. In 1955, the group was narrowed down to the current FVEYs countries.

FVEY intercepts telephone calls, faxes, emails, social media data and text messages from satellites, telephone networks and fiber-optic cables. FVEY also receives user data records from large technology companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, YouTube, AOL, Skype, and Apple. Each member country has multiple government agencies involved, and each agency is responsible for one to two roles, including "human intelligence, defense intelligence, security intelligence, geo-intelligence, and signal intelligence."

When our government is allowed to combine propaganda with techniques such as neurolinguistic programming, hypnosis, bots, big data, and controlled messaging, do "we the people" even have truly independent individual beliefs, or is everything we think being manipulated? If that is the case, what does this mean for democracy? When a government decides to wage PsyWar on its own citizens, then the fundamentals and concepts of free agency, sovereignty, voting integrity, and representative democracy become irrelevant.

If we wish to remain independent thinkers and preserve our ability to learn, think, and debate issues, we must become warriors in the fight against government development and deployment of propaganda, censorship, and PsyWar.

According to the US Department of Defense Psychological Operations Manual of 2010, in the case of domestic crisis management, the DoD can become involved in psyops operations against civilian citizens during times of crisis management. The manual states:

"When authorized, PSYOP forces may be used domestically to assist lead federal agencies during disaster relief and crisis management by informing the domestic population"

As discussed above, the policies of the US Government currently allow deployment of both military, intelligence, and homeland security PsyWar personnel and weapons on US soil against US citizens. Technically, deployment of US Army PsyWar capabilities and weapons on US Citizens is limited to domestic situations requiring disaster relief and crisis management, however those terms are not well defined and therefore subject to broad interpretation by Army commanders and the Office of the President (Commander in Chief). Other US military policy and guidance indicates that deployment of these capabilities during a domestic crisis should be restricted to advisory (to DHS, FBI, or other domestic psyops/PsyWar capabilities), details of how or if these US Army units were deployed or involved in COVIDcrisis propaganda, censorship, bot, troll, crowdstalking or other information warfare operations has not entered the public domain. However, the COVIDcrisis was defined by the Executive branch as requiring a "whole of government" approach which can safely be assumed to include deployment of DoD psyop/PsyWar capabilities. Mainstream media freedom of information requests and other investigative journalistic activities in the UK and Canada have documented deployment of military psyop/PsyWar capabilities against domestic citizens in those countries, and by extension it is likely that other FVEY partner nations deployed similar capabilities.

In the case of the US Army, the primary psyops/PsyWar divisions of the US Army's active duty Psychological Operations forces are organized into two Military Information Support Operations Groups (the Fourth and Eighth Psychological Operations Group (Airborne), both located at Ft. Liberty, NC. These US DoD capabilities trace their roots back through the "ghost army" program of WW II. These active duty operations are supplemented by two Army reserve psyop groups based in Twinsburg, Ohio (second psyops group) and Moffett Field, California (seventh psyops group), which provide seventy four percent of total Army capacity.

In a 2021 article series, the NATO-affiliated journal "NATO review" provides current justification and rationale for developing and expanding NATO and FVEY hybrid or fifth generation PsyWar capabilities:

. . . the line between war and peace time is rendered obscure. . . . Hybrid warfare below the threshold of war or direct overt violence pays dividends despite being easier, cheaper, and less risky than kinetic operations. It is much more feasible to, let's say, sponsor and fan disinformation in collaboration with non-state actors than it is to roll tanks into another country's territory or scramble fighter jets into its airspace. The costs and risks are markedly less, but the damage is real. . . . What takes the centre stage here is the role of civilians: how they think and act in relation to the state. Contemporary digital and social media platforms allow hybrid actors to influence this to the detriment of the adversary state with considerable ease. . . .This translates into perilous erosion of the core values of coexistence, harmony, and pluralism in and amongst democratic societies as well as the decision-making capability of the political leaders. Ultimately, what hybrid threats undercut is trust. . . . It is for this reason that building trust must be deemed the key bulwark against hybrid threats, especially ones that are geared towards undermining democratic states and polities. . . . People must have confidence in the state organs for governments to ensure compliance with their decisions. . . . Building, re-building, and fortifying trust remains critical to creating durable resilience in the face of hybrid threats that acutely imperil the security at the state and societal levels. Trust-building within and across communities ought to be the linchpin of efforts to neutralise hybrid warfare and threats.

In the case of the United Kingdom (England), the best documented FVEY deployment of military PsyWar capabilities against domestic civilians and residents during the COVIDcrisis has involved the British Army's seventy seventh brigade , a disinformation unit responsible for information warfare and psychological operations. The 77th brigade consists of various groups, including:

The unit was formed in a hurry in 2015 from various older parts of the British Army - a Media Operations Group, a Military Stabilisation Support Group, a Psychological Operations Group. It has been rapidly expanding ever since... Explaining their work, the soldiers used phrases I had heard countless times from digital marketers: "key influencers", "reach", "traction". ""Behavioural change is our USP [unique selling point]". You normally hear such words at viral advertising studios and digital research labs. .. Ever since NATO troops were deployed to the Baltics in 2017, Russian propaganda has been deployed too, alleging that NATO soldiers there are rapists, looters, little different from a hostile occupation. One of the goals of NATO information warfare was to counter this kind of threat: sharply rebutting damaging rumours, and producing videos of NATO troops happily working with Baltic hosts. Information campaigns such as these are "white": openly, avowedly the voice of the British military. But to narrower audiences, in conflict situations, and when it was understood to be proportionate and necessary to do so, messaging campaigns could become, the officer said, "grey" and "black" too. "Counter-piracy, counter-insurgencies and counter-terrorism," he explained. There, the messaging doesn't have to look like it came from the military and doesn't have to necessarily tell the truth. I saw no evidence that the 77th do these kinds of operations themselves, but this more aggressive use of information is nothing new. GCHQ, for instance, also has a unit dedicated to fighting wars with information. It is called the "Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group" - or JTRIG - an utterly unrevealing name, as it is common in the world of intelligence. Almost all we know about it comes from a series of slides leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. Those documents give us a glimpse of what these kinds of covert information campaigns could look like.

According to the slides, JTRIG was in the business of discrediting companies, by passing "confidential information to the press through blogs etc.", and by posting negative information on internet forums. They could change someone's social media photos ("can take 'paranoia' to a whole new level", a slide read.) They could use masquerade-type techniques - that is: placing "secret" information on a compromised computer. They could bombard someone's phone with text messages or calls.

JTRIG also boasted an arsenal of 200 info-weapons, ranging from in-development to fully operational. A tool dubbed "Badger" allowed the mass delivery of email. Another, called "Burlesque", spoofed SMS messages. "Clean Sweep" would impersonate Facebook wall posts for individuals or entire countries. "Gateway" gave the ability to "artificially increase traffic to a website". "Underpass" was a way to change the outcome of online polls.

I have personally experienced repeated hostile social media activity personally targeting me in a coordinated manner every time I travel to the UK to speak regarding COVIDcrisis and COVID genetic vaccine issues, and in particular when I have spoken in support of British House of Commons MP Andrew Bridgen. Many of the social media accounts that are involved in these waves of attacks self-identify as being involved in some way with the seventy-seventh brigade. Some of these may originate with an irregular government-affiliated group that appears to have loose ties with the seventy-seventh, known as the "Mutton Crew". The "Mutton Crew" is a suspected covert wing of the seventy-seventh brigade, a disinformation unit responsible for information warfare and psychological operations.

The "Mutton Crew" operatives are believed to engage in online activities, such as:

Derailing debates with name-calling and ridicule

Filing spurious complaints about targets, alleging infringement of Twitter rules

Compromising online platforms, as evidenced by the unusual listing of Swaledale Mutton Company at the top of follower lists for these accounts

Independent journalist Iain Davis, who writes a popular Substack under his own name with the tagline "The Disillusioned Blogger" describes the "Mutton Crew" tactics as crude but effective, due to the complicity of Twitter (X) platform itself .

According to the Wikispooks archive, the "Mutton Crew" is led by pharmaceutical propagandist Dr. Graham Bottley, and the network operates dozens of online accounts on social media platforms. Operatives in the network are renowned for engaging in vicious psychological warfare (PsyWar) tactics. On Twitter (X), the network is notorious for trolling the accounts of activists, dissidents and government critics, especially over COVID-19. "Mutton Crew" accounts on Twitter frequently have the Swaledale Mutton Company account shown at the top of their Follower list. Their treatment is different on the "X" platform relative to other known troll and bot operations. In contrast to the standard chronological order of Followers on Twitter where the most recent followers are listed first, Swaledale Mutton Company is invariably listed at the top of the Follower list for these "Mutton Crew" accounts according to Ian Davis. "Mutton Crew" operatives are trained in emotionalizing, antagonizing and goading their opponents into making aggressive and potentially abusive comments, responses which could be construed as abusive or 'hate speech' are then reported to Twitter. The network utilizes other recognized techniques of psychological warfare (PsyWar) to suppress the truth and to propagate disinformation which are detailed in the 2001 essay " Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation " by H. Michael Sweeney.

British and American state intelligence agencies are "weaponizing truth" to quash vaccine hesitancy as both nations prepare for mass inoculations, in a recently announced "cyber war" to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives.

In just the past week, the national-security states of the United States and United Kingdom have discreetly let it be known that the cyber tools and online tactics previously designed for use in the post-9/11 "war on terror" are now being repurposed for use against information sources promoting "vaccine hesitancy" and information related to Covid-19 that runs counter to their state narratives.

A new cyber offensive was launched on Monday by the UK's signal intelligence agency, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which seeks to target websites that publish content deemed to be "propaganda" that raises concerns regarding state-sponsored Covid-19 vaccine development and the multi-national pharmaceutical corporations involved.

Similar efforts are underway in the United States, with the US military recently funding a CIA-backed firm-stuffed with former counterterrorism officials who were behind the occupation of Iraq and the rise of the so-called Islamic State-to develop an AI algorithm aimed specifically at new websites promoting "suspected" disinformation related to the Covid-19 crisis and the US military-led Covid-19 vaccination effort known as Operation Warp Speed.

Both countries are preparing to silence independent journalists who raise legitimate concerns over pharmaceutical industry corruption or the extreme secrecy surrounding state-sponsored Covid-19 vaccination efforts, now that Pfizer's vaccine candidate is slated to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by month's end.

...

Essentially, the power of the state is being wielded like never before to police online speech and to deplatform news websites to protect the interests of powerful corporations like Pfizer and other scandal-ridden pharmaceutical giants as well as the interests of the US and UK national- security states, which themselves are intimately involved in the Covid-19 vaccination endeavor.

...

Given this precedent, it is certainly plausible that GCHQ could take the word of either an allied government, a government contractor, or perhaps even an allied media organization such as Bellingcat or the Atlantic Council's DFRLab that a given site is "foreign propaganda" in order to launch a cyber offensive against it. Such concerns

are only amplified when one of the main government sources for The Times article

bluntly stated that "GCHQ has been told to take out antivaxers [sic] online and on social media. There are ways they have used to monitor and disrupt terrorist propaganda," which suggests that the targets of GCHQ's new cyber war will, in fact, be determined by the content itself rather than their suspected "foreign" origin. The "foreign" aspect instead appears to be a means of evading the prohibition in GCHQ's operational mandate on targeting the speech or websites of ordinary citizens. This larger pivot toward treating alleged "anti-vaxxers" as "national security threats" has been ongoing for much of this year, spearheaded in part by Imran Ahmed, the CEO of the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, a member of the UK government's Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force, which is part of the UK government's Commission for Countering Extremism. Ahmed told the UK newspaper The

Independent in July that "I would go beyond calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists to say they are an extremist group that pose a national security risk." He then stated that "once someone has been exposed to one type of conspiracy it's easy to lead them down a path where they embrace more radical world views that can lead to violent extremism," thereby implying that "antivaxxers" might engage in acts of violent extremism. Among the websites cited by Ahmed's organization as promoting such "extremism" that poses a "national security risk" were Children's Health Defense, the National Vaccine Information Center, Informed Consent Action Network, and Mercola.com, among others.

At the time, the intent of the UK government to deploy British military PsyWar capabilities in support of government-approved narratives was also documented by both the Times of London and the Daily Mail. As the Times reported:

The (British) army has mobilised an elite "information warfare" unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.

The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army's 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.

Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,

Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an "uplift" of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations.

Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated. Ministers believe Britain will become the first western country to approve a vaccine next week. A BioNTech and Pfizer treatment is set to receive approval within days, paving the way for injections as soon as December 7. Ministers will then launch a huge public campaign to encourage people to get a jab. The campaign will be reinforced by counter-disinformation efforts led by the Cabinet Office, with support from the army and GCHQ.

Basically, Paul Schulte's testimony details the then widely held (but undocumented) belief that Russia and China were actively exploiting vaccine hesitancy in Western nation (and specifically British) citizens, that the genetic vaccines under development at that time by Oxford/Astra Zeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer were presumed to be safe and effective, and that therefore the Government was justified in deploying the advanced PsyWar weaponry developed for offshore combat by units such as the seventy-seventh brigade against its own citizens, and implied that similar deployments of military PsyWar capabilities against citizens were planned to occur in the other FVEY alliance nations.

..observing and reflecting on the strains and disputes occurring from Covid 19, reported in the US, UK , France, Israel and other democratic states, and as a student of group psychology and political warfare, I have become concerned that there are systemic informational vulnerabilities in relation to biosecurity threats, whose social, political and strategic implications have not, as far as I can tell, sufficiently addressed in public discussions of resilience in the National Security Strategy, and which include indirect impacts on public health and prosperity. I have been in touch with networks of experts in UK, and US academia, and participated in recent London and transatlantic online expert workshops on national resilience and biosecurity responses. This has confirmed to me that the informational problem potentially ranges all across all elements of healthcare - from those looking up dietary advice, to parents concerned about vaccinating their children. For wider society, it could, for example, include the sources that specialists from various disciplines, as well as ordinary members of the public, will access to inform themselves about the range and utility of available medical treatments, and medical history, including the history of infectious diseases.

The notion that, usually undefined, "Information Warfare" poses a threat to British national cohesion and social resilience is now widely accepted in national security planning, but far less so in public debate over health issues. As a very recent article in the RUSI Journal put it: "The information environment is under siege by a mass of domestic and foreign actors whose tools and agendas overlap in ways that blur borders and challenge norms. Capability outpaces both regulation and education." According to the latest MoD Integrated Operational Concept 18, (IOC), aimed at 2025, but written in the present tense: "The old distinction between foreign and domestic defence is increasingly irrelevant. When 'fake news' appears to originate not abroad but at home it gains credibility and reach, stoking confusion, disagreement, division and doubt in our societies. This has been particularly evident with the significant uptick in disinformation and misinformation during the coronavirus crisis......Sub-threshold operations are continuously executed at reach by malign actors who seek to undermine our military readiness, our critical national infrastructure, our economy, our alliances and our way of life." Public commentaries on these clandestine activities are accumulating fast. On 14 October the new MI5 Director General, Ken McCallum was explicit.

"Crucially, on the vaccine, we've been working to protect the integrity of UK research..., our academic research, our infrastructure. And, much discussed, threats to our democracy. In the 2020s, one of the toughest challenges facing MI5 and indeed government is that the differing national security challenges presented by Russian, Chinese, Iranian and other actors are growing in severity and in complexity - while terrorist threats persist at scale." This was rapidly followed by linked revelations in The London Times of open Russian efforts on state TV channels to denigrate and so damage international public trust in the Covid vaccine under development in Oxford. The two statements have been seen as unusually pointed counter- disinformation responses. On 9 November The Times was able to publish further information quoting "official sources" to reveal that GCHQ22, in cooperation with the British Army's 77th Brigade was involved in offensive cyber operations tackling anti-vaccine disinformation, using tactics similar to those used against the Islamic State. A rapid response team has been established in the Cabinet Office to coordinate such action against damaging narratives, including bogus treatments and conspiracy theories about the virus. But the sources stated that disruption would only be permitted against information originating from state adversaries and not online content from ordinary citizens, however misinformed. Nor could UK government specialists attack websites based in the other nations of the "Five Eyes" Intelligence Partnership (US, Canada Australia and New Zealand), which would remain the responsibility of partner agencies.

We were warned. Based on information available even before the genetic "vaccine" products were authorized for emergency use, journalist Whitney Webb clearly saw and anticipated the PsyWar that was about to be deployed. And the world did nothing. How many more times will we not listen to those among us who are able to see through the fog of modern, military-grade fifth-generation psychological warfare and anticipate what lies and cyberattacks are about to be deployed against us?

With this additional bit of text, I have completed the next round of "copy editor comments" edits on the book, so after Jill compiles the added references, it will be going back to Skyhorse (publisher) for the next round.

Getting a quality book ready for publication is a big lift. Especially one with a little less than 130,000 words.

For those following along with my "Where's Waldo" life these days. I leave for Rome tonight on United. Wish me luck.

Of course, Jill and I will continue to post Substacks (including the "Friday Funnies" and "Sunday Strip") while I am abroad for about four days to attend another conference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Five Eyes Alliance Intelligence Network and The British Army's 77th Brigade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One example of military PsyWar deployment against civilians during the COVIDcrisis

# data[].attributes.body
https://fishersbook.com/

# data[].attributes.body
https://texasscorecard.com/federal/doctors-with-coronavirus-treatment-face-orwellian-suppression/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When reputable Texas doctors offered the world evidence of apparently successful treatment plans for the coronavirus, one might have expected medical researchers and leaders to rush to explore the feasibility of the treatment plan.

Instead, leaders have shunned the news, mainstream media has gone into hyperdrive to discredit the doctors, and medical elites have refused to explore the treatment plans. And now, tech giants have removed and suppressed viral social media posts containing information from those medical professionals regarding their treatments.

It is a terrifying act of suppression straight out of George Orwell's "1984," a book that describes a tyrannical future where truth is suppressed and lies are promoted.

The most well-known treatment plan receiving the most pushback is the use of hydroxychloroquine, a common drug used for treating malaria, combined with zinc tablets and an antibiotic.

This formula gained national attention when Texas physician Dr. Robin Armstrong used it to successfully treat residents of a large nursing home in Texas City.

Armstrong, who also serves as a member of the Republican National Committee, spoke before the legislative priorities committee at the Republican Party state convention in Houston earlier this month, where he mentioned the pushback and retribution being exacted on any doctor who dares to publicly state they have had luck with a viable treatment option for COVID-19.

Additionally, Armstrong told the committee he was actively speaking with another Texas doctor who is gaining notoriety with another treatment option: Dr. Richard Bartlett.

Bartlett, a highly respected private practitioner and emergency room physician, studied the virus and says he produced his unique treatment option from a scientific approach.

Dozens of Bartlett's patients have since come forward, offering their testimony of Bartlett's treatment and saying it saved their lives.

Bartlett bills his treatment plan as the "silver bullet" for COVID-19 and has launched a website where he has released a white paper on the effects of his treatment. Bartlett is submitting the white paper to a scientific journal for review and publishing.

The "silver bullet" treatment consists of an inhaled steroid, "budesonide," which is FDA-approved and has been commonly used to treat asthma since the 1970s. Along with the inhaled steroid, Bartlett prescribes zinc tablets and an antibiotic, the combination of which he and his patients say has worked extremely well to treat the symptoms of the virus.

Texas Scorecard previously reported on another Texas physician, Dr. Ivette Lozano, and her success in treating patients with the virus, as well as the pushback and interference she received from bureaucratic state regulators regarding her treatment.

State Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) was forced to intervene on Lozano's behalf to keep the State Pharmacy Board from preventing her usage of hydroxychloroquine, and blasted the regulators, saying they are trying to keep available and affordable medicines from being used so pharmaceutical giants can produce a new product at a higher, more profitable cost.

State Rep. James White (R-Hillister) has also weighed in on the issue, taking to social media to praise Dr. Bartlett's efforts and blasting "medical elites" for immediately trying to disprove Bartlett's treatment rather than explore its potential. White has said Texans are fed up with "this Luddite behavior of the medical elites."

Efforts to suppress alternative treatments escalated even higher this week, when a video of a group of doctors from across the country holding a press conference in Washington D.C. went viral, gaining millions of views on social media platforms.

Social media and tech giants reacted, with Facebook and Twitter scrubbing the videos from their platforms, saying the information was false and misleading.

But they didn't stop there.

Twitter went so far as to temporarily ban Donald Trump Jr.'s personal Twitter account for sharing the press conference video. Even more alarmingly, Twitter deleted the post when President Donald Trump shared it on his account.

"This is outrageous," Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) said, weighing in on the social media platform's censorship of the president.

"Whatever you think of hydroxychloroquine, no government should stand between you and your doctor, much less be censored for promoting a hypothesis."

Dr. Lozano claims to have been the subject of such censorship, as well. She regularly posts stories of successfully treating coronavirus patients on Facebook, which she says has resulted in Facebook repeatedly issuing short-term bans on her account. She is currently under a 30-day posting ban.

As alternative coronavirus treatments continue to gain more attention across the country, it remains to be seen how long the media and tech giants will continue to attempt to suppress them-or if these treatments will ultimately be proven to work.
Author's note: Before publication, I received a notification from Facebook that I had "shared a post with false information about COVID-19″ on my personal page. The notice informed me that my post had been removed, and I was encouraged to share a link from the World Health Organization to correct my apparent wrongdoing. The post was a local news story about Dr. Richard Bartlett and his treatment plan for COVID-19.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doctors With Coronavirus Treatment Face Orwellian Suppression - Texas Scorecard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A number of doctors across the country-who are apparently successfully treating the Chinese coronavirus-are being attacked in Orwellian-like oppression by the media and government regulators.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.truthforhealth.org/

# data[].attributes.body
https://nationalpost.com/news/local-news/complaints-case-addresses-free-speech-of-ottawa-surgeon-with-dissenting-covid-19-views/wcm/6d3c6973-f089-4faf-9161-4f62f54165b6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

# data[].attributes.body
https://threadreaderapp.com/account/subscriptions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads

# data[].attributes.headline
Read these Threads that trace the decades of Planning.

# data[].attributes.subject
Read these Threads that trace the decades of Planning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Latest Twitter Threads by @dezzie_rezzie on Thread Reader App

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Another Doctor Dares to Challenge Tyranny

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The drug cartel of the North has ways of bending physicians to its demands, until challenged by courageous individuals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OUR PURPOSE

Our purpose manifold:

First, to reveal to you, the public, the criminal organization that is seeking to coercively extort and obtain complete control over the global population. The primary instruments of the organization's criminal conduct include the creation of patented bioweapons marketed as novel viruses and injections.

Second, to remove the protective anonymity of the criminal syndicate's participants, including individuals, business entities, and government organizations who are pursuing a 21st century, 100-year program, called "The Century of the Vaccine."

Finally, to expose and detail the specific crimes this organization has committed to extort commercial gain from, and raw political power over citizens of the United States of America and the world through the creation and use of bioweapons and engaging in bio-terrorism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our purpose manifold: First, to reveal to you, the public, the criminal organization that is seeking to coercively extort and obtain complete control over the global population. The primary instruments of the organization's criminal conduct include the creation of patented bioweapons marketed as novel viruses and injections.

# data[].attributes.body
https://drshoemakercovidtruth.com/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12574387/Senior-NHS-surgeon-struck-Covid-conspiracy-theory-videos.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Chris Shoemaker - Dr. Shoemaker Covid Truth discusses Real World Facts about Covid 19 Therapies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Shoemaker Covid Truth discusses Real World Facts about Covid 19 Therapies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Come to our Affidavit Signing Events

Come to our Affidavit Signing Events

Come to our Affidavit Signing Events

Come to our Affidavit Signing Events

Come to our Affidavit Signing Events

Come to our Affidavit Signing Events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Come to our Affidavit Signing Events Come to our Affidavit Signing Events Come to our Affidavit Signing Events Come to our Affidavit Signing Events Come to our Affidavit Signing Events Come to our Affidavit Signing Events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill have been withdrawn by her regulatory body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

TORONTO: The Democracy Fund (TDF) is pleased to announce that disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, scheduled for a 15-day fully-contested hearing in early 2024, have been withdrawn by her regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

Dr. Gill is a specialist physician practicing in the Greater Toronto Area, with significant post-graduate training in pediatrics, and allergy and clinical immunology, including scientific research in microbiology, virology and vaccinology.

She has a large following on X , the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, where she has shared scientific studies and opinions about various government Covid policies since the start of the pandemic, including her concerns about the harms caused by lockdowns and mandates, particularly to the most marginalized members of society.

As a result of her online advocacy, Dr. Gill has faced constant investigations and disciplinary actions by the CPSO since August of 2020, when she was the target of an online campaign by other doctors, media and members of the public to generate complaints against her. In total, there were seven public (non-patient) complaints made to the CPSO about her tweets, and a separate Registrar's investigation was also initiated. All eight matters were considered by a committee of the CPSO, called the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC), on February 3, 2021. Details of those proceedings, and the tweets which resulted in "cautions" ordered against Dr. Gill, can be found in the TDF's earlier news release.

Immediately following these ICRC decisions, which were upheld by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) and are now the subject of a pending judicial review to be heard in Divisional Court in early 2024, the CPSO initiated a second, high-level Registrar's investigation into Dr. Gill's social media commentary. This culminated in a further report to the ICRC in the summer of 2022. Although Dr. Gill provided extensive legal submissions and medical/scientific literature supporting all of her public commentary, as well as an expert report by the former Chief Medical Officer for Ontario, Dr. Richard Schabas, the matter was sent by the ICRC to the disciplinary tribunal in October of 2022.

In a summary of the Notice of Hearing published to Dr. Gill's public register, the CPSO charged that, "between approximately February 2021 and 2022, Dr. Gill engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and/or failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and/or is incompetent in relation to her communications, including but not limited to communications on social media / online / digital platforms regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and related issues. This includes but is not limited to making misleading, false or inflammatory statements about vaccinations, treatments and public health measures for COVID-19."

Since a massive trove of thousands of tweets and retweets was produced by the CPSO to support the charge, Dr. Gill requested particulars so she could understand the case she was required to meet. Although the investigation report against Dr. Gill and her lengthy submissions in response to it cannot be publicly disclosed , due to being part of the College's disclosure, the CPSO's statement of particulars and Dr. Gill's in response to it are public documents under the Tribunal Rules of Procedure. As noted in the statement, the CPSO took the position that the "totality" of Dr. Gill's Twitter commentary "would have had the effect of undermining public confidence in measures taken to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and would have had the effect of deterring the public from complying with public health measures. The communications are unprofessional, unbalanced and uniformly opposed to public health measures."

Dr. Gill and her lawyer, Lisa Bildy, supported by The Democracy Fund, vigorously opposed this characterization of Dr. Gill's commentary, and had been preparing for the upcoming hearing, including lining up both Ontario-based and world-renowned experts. However, the CPSO suddenly its Notice of Hearing on September 12, meaning it has dropped its case and disciplinary hearing against Dr. Gill.

"While we are pleased that some of the burden has now been lifted from Dr. Gill's shoulders and she has been vindicated, it is concerning that it went this far," said Ms. Bildy. "The top-down imposition of a singular unquestionable narrative, on pain of disciplinary proceedings, has been damaging not only to the doctors who advocated for evidence-based medicine and robust scientific debate about novel public health measures and their consequences, but it has also been damaging to the credibility of the institutions which imposed them."

In the meantime, her judicial review of the cautions, relating to tweets in 2020 opposing harmful lockdowns, will continue. Dr. Gill looks forward to having the Divisional Court consider whether both the ICRC and the HPARB acted reasonably in issuing or upholding the public censure of an ethical physician for communicating concern about extraordinary public health policies and their adverse impacts, despite the infringement of her Charter-guaranteed freedoms of expression, conscience and religion.

To help in the fight for physicians to freely express concerns and engage in open scientific debate on public health policies in accordance with their Hippocratic Oath and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you can make a tax-deductible donation to support TDF and brave Canadians like Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill.
About The Democracy Fund:
Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.

For media interviews please contact:

Lisa Bildy, Libertas Law

Email: [email protected]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CPSO drops disciplinary proceedings against Ontario physician for opposing harmful Covid policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill have been withdrawn by her regulatory body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. TORONTO: The Democracy Fund (TDF) is pleased to announce that disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, scheduled for a 15-day fully-contested hearing in early 2024, have been withdrawn by her regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

# data[].attributes.body
https://truthinmedicine.podbean.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by Dr. William Makis
On March 3, 2023, a German team published an extensive review of MASKING during the COVID-19 pandemic that should put the final nail in the coffin of masking & mask mandates.
A German team, led by an Independent Surgeon in private practice, published a large review of MASK use during COVID-19 pandemic. It has 172 references.
I will summarize key findings:

4.5 billion people (58%) were confronted with a "mask obligation"

Fresh air has 0.04% CO2

Wearing masks more than 5 minutes: 1.4 to 3.2% CO2

Carbon Dioxide Re-breathing

Acute CO2 Toxicity:

10 min of 2.5-3.5% CO2 increases cerebral blood flow by 100% = headaches

hyperventilation, metabolic changes (acidosis)

Chronic CO2 Toxicity (animal studies):

0.3% CO2 - irreversible neuron damage, neuron destruction, increased anxiety, impaired learning and memory (rat studies)

0.5% CO2 - testicular toxicity in adolescents (rat studies show diminished fertility in rat testes after one 4hr exposure at 2.5% CO2)

0.8% CO2 - stillbirths (safety level set by US Navy for female submarine crew, due to rat studies showing fetal malformations, post implantation loss, lower probability of viable fetuses)

Other Findings:

N95 masks and surgical masks performed at their worst with coronavirus & influenza virus particles (did ok with bigger bacterial sized particles) (source)

Children: Data on a total of 25 930 children wearing face masks for 270 min per day showed that 68% complained about discomfort. Side effects included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness/fatigue (37%) (source)

Any mandatory masking of pregnant women in the real world exceeds the CO2 toxicity limit set by US Navy for female submarine crew

Stillbirths:

Are mask mandates responsible for 28% rise in stillbirths worldwide?

Italy: 3-fold increase in stillbirths during lockdown period Mar-May 2020 which included mask mandates

42% of US female surgeons lost a pregnancy Nov.2020-Feb.2021

Sweden: no mask mandates, no increase in stillbirths

Mechanism: increased CO2 and acidity in blood trigger compensatory mechanisms that lead to calcifications in placenta

CO2 plays a role in oxidative stress which would impede fetal body development, lead to DNA mutations

CO2 can increase inflammation leading to an imbalanced immune response, procoagulant state and early pregnancy loss.

Some evidence that N95 mask use by pregnant women could result in their children having significantly reduced verbal, motor and overall cognitive performance (child neurodevelopment study in Rhode Island that had mask mandates). (source)

Children and Adolescents

children are not small adults

0.3% CO2 exposure to adolescent brain neurons can cause neuronal destruction, anxiety and impaired learning and memory (Uysal, 2014)

0.3% CO2 - neurons die off (apoptosis), especially under exercise or stress.

CO2 can destroy spermatid and Sertoli cells in testes

Damaging mechanism of CO2 in testes is oxidative stress, acidosis, increased inflammation and apoptosis.

CO2 toxicity to testes has been known for 60 years.

My Take...
This study ONLY looks at CO2 re-breathing toxicity.
As the authors write:

"other noxious agents in the masks contribute to toxicological long-term effects like the inhalation of synthetic microfibers, carcinogenic compounds and volatile organic compounds could also play a role regarding our research question"

The animal studies are clear and this review summarizes them thoroughly.
Not only does masking not work on coronaviruses or influenza viruses, but masking causes real harm to vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, children and adolescents.
The harm being caused by masking is very serious. Even a few minutes of wearing a surgical, cloth or N95 mask and you initiate the following long term damages:

children - irreversible neuron damage, neuron destruction, increased anxiety, impaired learning and memory

adolescents - testicular toxicity

pregnant women - stillbirths, fetal malformations, post implantation loss, lower probability of viable fetuses

When you know the physical and mental harms that masks can cause, the intent of those who are pushing mask mandates again, suddenly becomes very clear.
Subscribe to Dr. Makis' Substack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MASK TOXICITY - German study exposes dangers of CO2 re-breathing - neuron death & learning impairment (children), stillbirths & birth defects (pregnant women), testicular toxicity (adolescents)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The COVID shots were not the only toxic measure forced on humanity. Regular mask-wearing was also harmful.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/florida-doctor-reinstated-after-losing-board-certification-for-criticizing-covid-19-vaccines-5480957

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1697175404954423551

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
This showed that PCR for a common cold coronavirus also resulted positive for SARSCoV:
https://t.co/hrAPB2Uu7Y
"An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus"
"In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in…

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.entities.urls[].title
An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.entities.urls[].description
In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in British Columbia, during which nucleic acid tests and serology unexpectedly indicated reactivity for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV).Cases at a care facility were epidemiologically ...

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
This showed that PCR for a common cold coronavirus also resulted positive for SARSCoV:
https://t.co/hrAPB2Uu7Y
"An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus"
"In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in… https://t.co/QZBrouXwmr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
This showed that PCR for a common cold coronavirus also resulted positive for SARSCoV:https://t.co/hrAPB2Uu7Y
"An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus"
"In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in…
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) August 31, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.entities.urls[].title
An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.entities.urls[].description
In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in British Columbia, during which nucleic acid tests and serology unexpectedly indicated reactivity for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV).Cases at a care facility were epidemiologically ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
This showed that PCR for a common cold coronavirus also resulted positive for SARSCoV:
https://t.co/hrAPB2Uu7Y
"An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus"
"In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in… https://t.co/QZBrouXwmr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
This showed that PCR for a common cold coronavirus also resulted positive for SARSCoV:
https://t.co/hrAPB2Uu7Y
"An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus"
"In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in… https://t.co/QZBrouXwmr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
This showed that PCR for a common cold coronavirus also resulted positive for SARSCoV:
https://t.co/hrAPB2Uu7Y
"An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus"
"In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.entities.urls[].title
An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.entities.urls[].description
In summer 2003, a respiratory outbreak was investigated in British Columbia, during which nucleic acid tests and serology unexpectedly indicated reactivity for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV).Cases at a care facility were epidemiologically ...

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kc0O7owFyGiYs8N8wSq17gRUPEDQsD5lLUL_3KGCgRE/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/medical-board-suspends-license-of-doctor-critical-of-covid-19-vaccines-5461357

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Medical Board Suspends License of Doctor Critical of COVID-19 Vaccines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A state medical board suspended the license of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny after she allegedly refused to cooperate with an investigation.…

# data[].attributes.body
https://drshoemakercovidtruth.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Chris Shoemaker - Dr. Shoemaker Covid Truth discusses Real World Facts about Covid 19 Therapies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Shoemaker Covid Truth discusses Real World Facts about Covid 19 Therapies.

# data[].attributes.body
https://off-guardian.org/2020/08/11/ccdh-the-centre-for-cancel-culture-and-digital-hypocrisy-part-1/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.illusionconsensus.com/
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Podcast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Illusion of Consensus | Rav Arora | Substack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
10,000+ subscribers. An independent, podcast-fuelled newsletter devoted to dismantling weaponized “consensus” in science: COVID-19, transgender care, nutrition, and mental health. Click to read The Illusion of Consensus, a Substack publication.

# data[].attributes.body
https://globalhealthproject.org/
The Global Health Project is a coalition of organizations, experts & advocates dedicated to improving & protecting the health & future for all humans through education, advocacy, programs and communication initiatives; defending health choice, equality and responsibility for future generations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are starting a Movement.

We are a group of doctors and citizens who acknowledge that we can't just move on from this experience. We need to band together, recognize the truth, and step up to ensure that this never happens again.

Watch the video.

Get Involved by Taking 3 Simple Steps

1

Join the Movement.

There is power in collective voices. We need to encourage doctors and individuals to recognize that their feelings and experiences were manipulated as part of larger, systemic political and financial interests. Join us and decide where we go from here.

2

Spread the message.

Help us share the video, and empower more doctors and citizens to speak up about their experiences. We need to challenge the culture of shame, silence and secrecy surrounding what occurred.

3

Start the conversation.

The movement will foster a sense of solidarity among other individuals by demonstrating the prevalence and widespread recognition of coercion and influence by Global Health agencies over the medical profession. It will help individuals realize that they are not alone and that their experiences are not isolated incidents. By acknowledging that the doctors they gave authority to are now sharing their doubts and resistance, they will have more confidence in their position.

Creating solidarity & permission

By doing so, it empowers individuals to break their silence and challenges the stigma and shame associated with resisting the intense COVID media narratives and manipulation tactics.

We're Empowering Individuals

This film was created to be catalyst for individuals doubting the COVID narrative at varying levels to come forward and share their experiences and emotional sentiment with the safety net of trusted doctors as their voice.

We're building a community of doctors and patients affected by medical tyranny. Our goal is to rebuild the sacred trust between the medical community and those they serve.

Do you have a story?

Whether you're a doctor or a patient, we want to hear your story too. At what moment did you wake up?

Support our efforts.

The Global Health Project is a 501c3 organization. Your donations are tax deductible.

Start the conversation.

Tag your friends, families and doctors and start asking questions. How does this video make them feel? Use it as an opportunity to begin a new path of communication. Follow the conversation by using these hashtags:

#GlobalHealthProject

#TalkToYourDoc

#StartTheConversation

Share on Social Media.

Access your preferred social media platform (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter).

Start creating a new post or status.

Look for the option to attach or upload media (often represented by a camera icon or a plus sign).

Click on the attachment/upload media option and select the downloaded short form video from your computer.

Find and follow GHP.

We've joined several social media sites, including:

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/user200871499
Twitter: @GlobalHProject
TikTok: @GlobalHealthProject
Gab: @GlobalHealthProject
GETTR: @GlobalHealthProject

The Global Health Project is a 501(c)3 nonprofit coalition of organizations, experts & advocates dedicated to improving & protecting the health & future for all humans through education, advocacy, programs and communication initiatives; defending health choice, equality and responsibility.

Interested in scheduling press interviews or supporting our mission?

Contact: info@globalhealthproject.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protecting the health & future for all humans.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hartgroup.org/
HART is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts.  We came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We continue to be concerned about the lack of open scientific debate in mainstream media and the worrying trend of censorship and harassment of those who question the narrative. Science without question is dogma.

# data[].attributes.body
https://doctors4covidethics.org/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Readers of our website will be aware that the mRNA vaccines that have been used against COVID-19 have caused injury and death on an unprecedented scale in the history of medicine. This book argues that these harms had to be expected from first principles of immunology.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.beyondthecon.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Join The Fight for a Grand Jury Investigation!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join the fight to see an independent Special Grand Jury investigate all aspects of COVID and hold anyone guilty of wrong doing accountable!

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.feds4medfreedom.org/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hartgroup.org/pandemic-definitions/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-harm-caused-by-masks

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/_taylorhudak/status/1660922858665566209

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
I am in the courtroom covering the case of Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in Germany.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
I am in the courtroom covering the case of Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in Germany. https://t.co/JJMlJmt6nq

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
I am in the courtroom covering the case of Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in Germany. pic.twitter.com/JJMlJmt6nq
— Taylor Hudak (@_taylorhudak) May 23, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
I am in the courtroom covering the case of Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in Germany. https://t.co/JJMlJmt6nq

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
I am in the courtroom covering the case of Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in Germany. https://t.co/JJMlJmt6nq

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
I am in the courtroom covering the case of Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in Germany.

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/International0n/status/1660874121583165440

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Dr Rasheed killed for speaking out against vaccine 😞 rip

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Dr Rasheed killed for speaking out against vaccine 😞 rip https://t.co/kfo8Fb970u

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Dr Rasheed killed for speaking out against vaccine 😞 rip pic.twitter.com/kfo8Fb970u
— INTERNATIONAL NEWS NETWORK (@International0n) May 23, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Dr Rasheed killed for speaking out against vaccine 😞 rip https://t.co/kfo8Fb970u

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Dr Rasheed killed for speaking out against vaccine 😞 rip https://t.co/kfo8Fb970u

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Dr Rasheed killed for speaking out against vaccine 😞 rip

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/canindependent/status/1660696914029887528

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
MUST WATCH: Former Global News Director Anita Krishna, with 25 years of experience, testified at the National Citizen Inquiry that during the COVID-19 pandemic, "our stories were slanted," "we shoved propaganda in your face," and that working for the broadcaster "was like working… https://t.co/esfstkiq6m

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
MUST WATCH: Former Global News Director Anita Krishna, with 25 years of experience, testified at the National Citizen Inquiry that during the COVID-19 pandemic, "our stories were slanted," "we shoved propaganda in your face," and that working for the broadcaster "was like working… https://t.co/esfstkiq6m https://t.co/jlBS1ozNVV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
MUST WATCH: Former Global News Director Anita Krishna, with 25 years of experience, testified at the National Citizen Inquiry that during the COVID-19 pandemic, "our stories were slanted," "we shoved propaganda in your face," and that working for the broadcaster "was like working… pic.twitter.com/jlBS1ozNVV
— The Canadian Independent (@canindependent) May 22, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
MUST WATCH: Former Global News Director Anita Krishna, with 25 years of experience, testified at the National Citizen Inquiry that during the COVID-19 pandemic, "our stories were slanted," "we shoved propaganda in your face," and that working for the broadcaster "was like working… https://t.co/esfstkiq6m https://t.co/jlBS1ozNVV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
MUST WATCH: Former Global News Director Anita Krishna, with 25 years of experience, testified at the National Citizen Inquiry that during the COVID-19 pandemic, "our stories were slanted," "we shoved propaganda in your face," and that working for the broadcaster "was like working… https://t.co/esfstkiq6m https://t.co/jlBS1ozNVV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
MUST WATCH: Former Global News Director Anita Krishna, with 25 years of experience, testified at the National Citizen Inquiry that during the COVID-19 pandemic, "our stories were slanted," "we shoved propaganda in your face," and that working for the broadcaster "was like working… https://t.co/esfstkiq6m

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1652512207090122753

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death:

"In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and… https://t.co/Yg3SxPuVG3

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death:

"In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and… https://t.co/Yg3SxPuVG3 https://t.co/t9wDpdmQG3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death:

"In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and… pic.twitter.com/t9wDpdmQG3
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) April 30, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death:

"In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and… https://t.co/Yg3SxPuVG3 https://t.co/t9wDpdmQG3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death:

"In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and… https://t.co/Yg3SxPuVG3 https://t.co/t9wDpdmQG3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death:

"In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and… https://t.co/Yg3SxPuVG3

# data[].attributes.body
https://tnc.news/2023/05/18/former-cbc-reporter-lockdowns/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The National Citizen's Inquiry (NCI) heard a shocking testimony from a former CBC journalist on Thursday that the state broadcaster prevented reporters from covering stories that went against the prevailing Covid-19 narrative and instead opted for "pushing propaganda."

Former CBC Manitoba reporter Marianne Klowak testified that the public broadcaster barred any fair coverage of the harms of lockdowns or vaccines.

"I know that as a public broadcaster, you'd expect us to be telling you the truth, and we stopped doing that," said Klowak.

"And it was a number of stories that I have put forward that were blocked, but it seemed to me as a journalist who'd been there 34 years, it's like the rules had changed overnight. And it changed so quickly that it left me just dizzy."

According to Klowak, her editors shut down stories highlighting the widespread protests against mandates and adverse reactions to the vaccine reported by doctors.

"I had witnessed in a very short time the collapse of journalism, news gathering, investigative reporting-and the way I saw it is that we were in fact pushing propaganda," she said.

"Not only had we shut down one side by silencing and discrediting anyone opposing the narrative, we had elevated and designated ourselves as gatekeepers of the truth. We no longer believed our audience was capable of thinking for themselves."

Specifically, Klowak said that editors had gutted one of her stories about a woman who suffered from a vaccine injury to the point that it was "sanitized."

"It should be just a straight story about someone who suffered an adverse reaction and we shouldn't downplay it. Instead, the way I saw it, her story was buried in experts and health officials and stats, which sanitized it," said Klowak.

"We failed to hold power to account and no one was holding the media to account."

In response to an inquiry by The Epoch Times, CBC's head of public affairs Chuck Thompson insisted the broadcaster did in fact cover those stories.

"Over the course of the pandemic, CBC News had multiple stories sharing the perspective of those Canadians who opposed COVID vaccine mandates," Thompson said.

"While we didn't cover every protest, we covered many. And to be clear, there was no overarching directive banning our journalists from writing about them."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Former CBC reporter claims broadcaster shut down stories critical of lockdowns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Citizen's Inquiry (NCI) heard a shocking testimony from a former CBC journalist on Thursday that the state broadcaster prevented reporters from covering stories that went against the prevailing Covid-19 narrative and instead opted for "pushing propaganda." Former CBC Manitoba reporter Marianne Klowak testified that the public broadcaster barred any fair coverage of the harms of lockdowns or vaccines.

# data[].attributes.body
https://sovereigntycoalition.org/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a supranational United Nations agency that is effectively controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as evidenced, among other things, by the manner in which the WHO’s Director-General, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, has relentlessly accomplished Beijing’s biddi

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theepochtimes.com/researcher-and-professor-criticize-covid-19-vaccine-trials-at-national-citizens-inquiry_5193190.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A researcher and a professor criticized the way COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials were conducted in their testimony at the April 13 hearing of the National Citizen's Inquiry (NCI) in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Drug companies rushed their trials and failed to account for factors such as long-term data, long-term safety and efficacy, and post-infection natural immunity and protection against severe disease, they said.

"These biological products being rushed like this is absolutely unprecedented," said Jessica Rose, a Canadian researcher with master's, PhD, and post-doctoral degrees in immunology, computational biology, molecular biology, and biochemistry.

"We don't know the effects. We should have done studies for years, perhaps even decades, to see if this was going to become a problem from a genomic point of view."

The NCI describes itself as a "citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative that is completely independent of government." It is hearing from Canadians and experts in order to investigate governments' COVID-19 policies in a "fair and impartial manner."

The inquiry is examining how the pandemic measures put in place by all levels of government impacted Canadians in the four areas of health, fundamental rights and freedoms, social well-being, and economic prosperity.

Rose said that while conventional vaccines take approximately 10 years to get to market, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were "rushed through clinical trial testing" in less than a year.

"These trials were basically the foundations upon which all the decisions were made and the mantra that we've been hearing for three years, 'safe and effective,' were based on."

According to Rose, the vaccines could not have been proven safe or effective because the exclusion criteria list for participation in the phase three trials was too large. She said only people who were healthy and of a certain age requirement were allowed to participate, and "there simply wasn't enough time," which meant "genuine safety testing was impossible."

The federal government has said that even though the process to approve COVID vaccines was changed to allow people use them earlier, it has still been robust to ensure safety.

"We did not change the requirements in terms of the evidence standard," Dr. Celia Lourenco, a Health Canada official, said in a court case last year related to federal travel vaccine mandates.

Adverse Reactions

Rose's recent research efforts are aimed at analysis of the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data in efforts to make this data accessible to the public.

She said when it came to adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, there was "enough of a safety signal" to have paused the vaccine rollout in January 2021, the first month after the rollout began on Dec. 17, 2020. In that first month, there were "almost 90,000 entries into the VAERS, spread across many age groups," she said, and according to the VAERS COVID vaccine mortality reports webpage, there were 733 deaths.

The researcher said that VAERS data has previously been used as a pharmacovigilance tool, such as in 1999 when the rotavirus vaccine was pulled off the U.S. market after several cases of intussusception were found. Intussusception is a serious condition in which part of the intestine slides into an adjacent part of the intestine, often blocking food or fluid from passing through.

"What's the cutoff for the number of people who are considered allowed to die, become disabled, or have neurological conditions etc. before the product is pulled?" Rose asked.

"An even better question might be, why aren't we even asking questions?" she said, referring to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health & Human Services, and Food and Drug Administration, which own the data. "Why aren't they doing the assessments that they always had been doing in the past?"

Natural, 'Recovered' Immunity

Jayanta Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research and policy at Stanford University, said that while the mRNA COVID vaccine trials initially showed that it was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, this was "not the key epidemiological endpoint that you care about from a policy perspective."

Bhattacharya, who is also director of the Center on the Demography and Economics of Health and Aging at Stanford University, said the trials focused on preventing symptomatic infection when they should have made protection against severe disease and death from COVID-19 their primary outcomes.

"The trial did not answer that question because it didn't have that as a primary endpoint and didn't have sufficient numbers of people enrolled to be able to answer that question with any statistical confidence," he said.

As an alternative, the trials would have needed to be conducted in a high-risk population, like the elderly, and it would not have been defensible, he added.

Bhattacharya also criticized the vaccine trials for explicitly excluding from their efficacy calculations patients who had previously contracted COVID-19 and recovered, thereby gaining natural immunity.

"The reason was simple. There's a tremendous amount of evidence from 2020 on that the patients who get COVID and recover have very substantial protection against both subsequent infection and also severe disease on reinfection," he said.

Vaccine Mandates

The professor also said that the necessary conditions for vaccine mandate were not present because the COVID vaccine did not stop transmission of the virus, and the protection provided by the vaccine was limited, especially for young people.

"The expected benefit of the vaccine for a low-risk person [younger people] is low, just by the basic math of it, because if you face a zero risk of dying from COVID, then the vaccine produces zero benefit," Bhattacharya said. He added that this was especially true given the potential for serious side effects like myocarditis-inflammation of the heart muscle, which could result in death-in young men.

Bhattacharya cited two studies, done in Qatar and Sweden, which found that the COVID vaccine's efficacy against infection dropped substantially after several months. He said "it's very, very common" to get infected just a few months after being vaccinated. Using himself as an example, he said he was vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine in April 2021 and got infected with COVID in August 2021.

The professor said that from a public health perspective, if a vaccine failed to stop disease transmission or had a limited effect on disease transmission, then "the idea that you need to vaccinate other people so that I'm protected is just false."

He also decried the public health restrictions enacted in Western countries, including Canada, which he said caused "tremendous harm," including economic, psychological, health, and physical harm. As evidence, he pointed to data showing that Sweden had the lowest rate of excess deaths from COVID despite having opted against widespread lockdowns throughout the pandemic.

"What you see is that the rate of cumulative all-cause excess deaths in Canada as of late 2022, was actually about 50 percent higher than that experienced by Sweden, which did not impose the kind of draconian lockdown policies that Canada followed," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Researcher and Professor Criticize COVID-19 Vaccine Trials at National Citizen's Inquiry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A researcher and a professor criticized the way COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials were conducted in their testimony at the April 13 hearing of the National Citizen's Inquiry (NCI) in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Drug companies rushed their trials and failed to account for factors such as long-term data, long-term safety and efficacy, and post-infection natural immunity and protection against severe disease, they said.

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1655072248372535296

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Here is the email that the American Board of ObGyn (ABOG) sent to ALL THEIR MEMBERS mid September 2021.  Every single nurse & doc in the USA was threatened and under gag orders from over 100 specialty, subspecialty & medical organizations ALL at the same time with the same… https://t.co/CM6y9BndQi https://t.co/5f8KqHuaxL

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Here is the email that the American Board of ObGyn (ABOG) sent to ALL THEIR MEMBERS mid September 2021.  Every single nurse & doc in the USA was threatened and under gag orders from over 100 specialty, subspecialty & medical organizations ALL at the same time with the same… https://t.co/CM6y9BndQi https://t.co/5f8KqHuaxL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Here is the email that the American Board of ObGyn (ABOG) sent to ALL THEIR MEMBERS mid September 2021. Every single nurse & doc in the USA was threatened and under gag orders from over 100 specialty, subspecialty & medical organizations ALL at the same time with the same… https://t.co/5f8KqHuaxL
— Steve Kirsch (@stkirsch) May 7, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Here is the email that the American Board of ObGyn (ABOG) sent to ALL THEIR MEMBERS mid September 2021.  Every single nurse & doc in the USA was threatened and under gag orders from over 100 specialty, subspecialty & medical organizations ALL at the same time with the same… https://t.co/CM6y9BndQi https://t.co/5f8KqHuaxL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Here is the email that the American Board of ObGyn (ABOG) sent to ALL THEIR MEMBERS mid September 2021.  Every single nurse & doc in the USA was threatened and under gag orders from over 100 specialty, subspecialty & medical organizations ALL at the same time with the same… https://t.co/CM6y9BndQi https://t.co/5f8KqHuaxL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Here is the email that the American Board of ObGyn (ABOG) sent to ALL THEIR MEMBERS mid September 2021.  Every single nurse & doc in the USA was threatened and under gag orders from over 100 specialty, subspecialty & medical organizations ALL at the same time with the same… https://t.co/CM6y9BndQi https://t.co/5f8KqHuaxL

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7729613/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Until pharmacological measures are effective at containing the COVID-19 outbreak, adopting protective behaviors is paramount. In this work, we aim at informing interventions to limit the spread of the contagion and prepare against any future outbreaks by developing a behavioral framework to interpret and prescribe both the individual and large-scale uptake of non-pharmaceutical measures. First, we analyze the barriers and facilitators to adherence to protective behaviors according to a three-term contingency by exploring potential gaps in terms of setting stimuli, motivating operations, delayed consequences, and positive or negative consequences. We explore their roles in the likelihood of individual compliance to protective behaviors, taking physical distancing as an example of functional analysis. Second, we interpret contagion control as the cumulative effect of large-scale adherence to protective behaviors. We explore the interrelations between societal problems caused or amplified by similar behaviors presented by many individuals and the coordination of agents or agencies aiming at promoting large-scale behavioral change. Then, we highlight the potential of developing a behavioral vaccine, and practical steps for applying it to promote sustainable cultural change that may protect against health, social, and economic losses in future outbreaks.

Keywords: behavioral vaccine, COVID-19, cultural change, policymaking, metacontingency, behavior analysis

1. Introduction

The extent of the COVID-19 outbreak is unprecedented in contemporary times. On 11 March 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and more than 1.48 million deaths worldwide have been registered as of December 2, 2020 [ 1]. However, it is difficult to measure the health, social, and economic impacts associated with the COVID-19 outbreak due to the novelty of the virus and its interaction with the current social and geopolitical scenario. Compartmental and statistical epidemiological models are amongst the most frequently used approaches to predict the COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR) and reproduction rate (R ₀), which represent crucial measures for estimating the progression and outcomes of the disease [ 2, 3, 4, 5]. The CFR is represented by the proportion of deaths relative to the confirmed cases, and the R ₀ represents the spread potential of a virus within a population. For example, with an R ₀ = 2, an infected person will transmit it to an average of two other individuals. Therefore, in order to contain the disease outbreak, it is important to achieve an R ₀ < 1, which will produce a downtrend in transmission, possibly eradicating the illness.

The CFR of COVID-19 has been estimated with different magnitudes from region to region [ 6] and is influenced by interactions between variables, such as the characteristics of the virus (e.g., lethality), the characteristics of the population (e.g., comorbidities and age), and the infrastructure (e.g., health care system capacity). CRF estimates may also be influenced by failures in surveillance and notification systems, leading to an underestimation of the incidence and mortality of a disease [ 7]. Even though R ₀ rates do not affect CFR directly, high values of R ₀ may lead to high death rates due to a low capacity to formulate early diagnosis and provide proper treatment. Nevertheless, a lack of medical resources may also lead to the unnecessary death of patients with other diagnoses due to an overloaded health care system [ 8, 9].

Although vaccination is among the most effective interventions to keep values of R ₀ < 1, there is a delay between a new infectious disease outbreak and the development of vaccines and other effective pharmacological containment measures. There is also a delay between the development of vaccines and their effectiveness in promoting heard immunity. Therefore, alternative measures to reduce R ₀ may take at least two complementary directions: (i) intensive testing and contact tracing, and (ii) population-wide practices of protective behaviors, such as self-hygiene, physical distancing, self-quarantine, the avoidance of mass congregations, and the use of personal protective equipment [ 10]. If adopted in the early phases of an outbreak, behavioral measures may prevent infectious diseases from reaching pandemic levels. These measures are often aimed at mitigating impacts on affected areas and preventing, or at least delaying, exponential spread in regions where cases are under control.

Modern computational and mathematical models highlight the importance of considering behavioral variables when predicting the spread of infectious diseases. For example, Kim et al. [ 11] modelled the COVID-19 outbreak in the Republic of Korea, showing reductions in R ₀ as a function of the adoption of protective behaviors. Chowell et al. [ 12] found that the adoption of protective behaviors also decreased CRF values, especially when mass testing was not possible. Although transmission and mortality rates differ greatly across territories [ 6], one could argue that sharing a common risk of infection and death threat would lead most citizens to adhere to experts' recommendations. However, individuals' habits and choices are shaped and maintained differently by a wide range of environmental variables. Therefore, behavior analysis may provide a useful framework to understand how environmental events influence and are influenced by human behavior.

The aim of this study is twofold. First, we aim to describe environmental conditions that may decrease or increase the likelihood of individuals engaging in protective behaviors. The adoption of these behaviors serves as an "immunization" against contracting and spreading the COVID-19 virus. In order to offer this general analysis, we first present basic principles of learning and their usefulness in interpreting some of the hindrances and facilitators to the adherence to protective behaviors. We provide a functional analysis of physical distancing as an example of targeted protective behavior. Furthermore, we describe how principles of learning may be used to inform the development of a behavioral vaccine.

The second aim of this paper is to analyze how organized efforts across sectors of a society may be arranged, allowing for the implementation of a behavioral vaccine. Implementing a behavioral vaccine should be timely and consider the outbreak status in each region; furthermore, different sectors of society must "act" in a coordinated fashion We advance a framework resting on culturo-behavior science to highlight the importance of developing a nationwide system response that may lead to societal protection in current and future outbreaks.

2. The Underlying Learning Principles of a Behavioral Vaccine

Experimental and applied studies have shown two functionally distinct environmental variables that influence behavior: antecedents and consequences [ 13]. Antecedents are contextual events that signal the likelihood of reinforcing and aversive consequences for the emissions of a response. That is, antecedents are cues to the type of consequence that will follow a response in each circumstance. Consequences are environmental events that affect behavioral classes, increasing or decreasing the probability of future occurrences. The functional relationship between a behavioral class, antecedents, and consequences is termed contingency. Changes in antecedents and consequences produce well-researched and systematic effects on behavior, which are described in terms of behavioral principles, e.g., [ 14, 15]. The outcomes of organism-environment interactions are considered behavioral principles insofar as there is a regularity across a wide range of species [ 16].

The first step to design a successful intervention is to carefully identify target behaviors. Knowing that behavior is affected by its relationship with antecedents and consequences, the second step is to describe the interactions between antecedent, behavior, and consequences. The environment where behavior takes place is a context containing antecedents that signal that the emission of a certain behavioral class may be followed by a set of consequences. Figure 1 depicts an example where meeting an old friend in a coffee shop (A) may be a context for shaking hands or saying "Hi!" from a 1 m distance (B). The consequences (C) of each behavioral class will increase or decrease their probability of occurring in future occasions.

Embry [ 17, 18] proposed that the power, cost-effect, and predictability of interventions at the population level can be achieved by adopting simple behavior strategies that focus on the antecedents and consequences of behaviors and that impact the societal level (e.g., drivers' seatbelt use and handwashing among medical personnel). These results can be achieved by adopting routines and practices that have been scientifically linked to reduce morbidity and mortality, thus functioning as a behavioral vaccine. In order to implement behavioral vaccines at the population level, the stakeholders must first know and understand the variables and principles influencing individual engagement in protective measures. In the next section, we describe the components of behavioral contingency (antecedent-behavior-consequence) and ways to take them into consideration when developing a behavioral vaccine. The elements described below were chosen due to their illustrative value for the phenomena analyzed. However, there is a vast range of behavior analytic concepts that could be equally useful but that were not considered due to the constraints of this work.

2.1. Targeting Behaviors Through a Clear Operational Definition

International guidelines for protective behaviors may appear to be descriptive enough. However, the interpretation of their form and when they should be adopted may vary. A precise operational definition of target behaviors is the first important step before identifying the variables that affect them. It may consider a behavioral class in terms of topography, temporality, frequency, and effort. Below, we describe important properties of an operational definition using different protective behaviors as examples. It is important to note that each property described is functionally dependent on the other two components of a contingency. That is, topography, temporality, frequency, and effort are contextually dependent (antecedents) and influenced by their effect (consequences).

2.1.1. Topography

Protective behaviors recommended by the authorities may vary in terms of their form and from context to context. For example, social and physical distancing have been topographically defined as "keeping space between yourself and other people outside of your home" [ 19]. This measure comprises a collection of behaviors aimed at decreasing R ₀ values by diminishing the probability of interpersonal contact transmission [ 20]. However, for highly transmissible diseases, precise definitions are more effective as guidance for effective protection. It is preferable to specify the exact distance that should be kept between individuals in different situations. For instance, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends keeping at least 2 m distance between one another [ 19]. In special cases, it was suggested that distancing for runners and cyclists should be extended to 5-10 m due to the high volatility of micro-droplets [ 21]. Social containment encompasses limiting gathering in crowds to avoid situations in which the minimum interpersonal distance cannot be enforced. The topography to be prioritized depends on contextual features and the stage of the pandemic.

2.1.2. Temporality

Still considering physical distancing as an example of target behavior, other formulations have proposed temporal distancing as an alternative [ 22]. Use of time can be managed to avoid crowds-for example, by scheduling alternative workhours and workstations for company employees, restricting access to stores and services, and discouraging the use of public transport whenever possible. In this way, the number of employees at the workplace at once is smaller, facilitating physical distancing. The implementation of working schedules may also facilitate manual and digital contact tracing, which has been suggested to be an efficient protective measure [ 23].

2.1.3. Frequency

Some protective behaviors are easy to define in terms of topography and temporality but challenging to adopt in terms of frequency. For example, for handwashing to be effective, it needs to be compliant with the instructions of frequency, duration, thoroughness, and detergent use specified by research findings, see [ 24]. Frequent and diligent hand washing is one of the most cost-efficient behavioral measures, being listed as the first protective measure and public advice on the WHO's website containing basic preventive measures [ 25]. Furthermore, it has been empirically addressed with increased attention by the scholarly community, e.g., [ 26].

2.1.4. Effort

Effort is characterized as the vigor, intensity, energy, and expenditure required for a response to produce an outcome. During an outbreak in which there is no medical treatment available, change of habits may imply short and long-term costs. Interventions that aim to reduce the effort of protective behaviors and to change the magnitude of its consequences could retain the adherence to protective measures. For example, if there are no stores nearby or the price of hygiene products is high, there will be a significant cost to self-hygiene behavior [ 27].

2.2. The Antecedent-Behavior Component

The discriminative function of a class of stimuli is acquired during a specific learning history of signaling the relation between a behavioral class and its consequences [ 28]. If a behavior is followed by reinforcing consequences in the presence of certain stimuli but not in the presence of others, the former will gain a signaling function and increase the probability of similar responses in their presence. In the COVID-19 context, however, an individual's learning history with specific discriminative events can represent a hindrance to their safety and the safety of others. For example, signaling the availability of social reinforcement in the presence of coworkers or classmates can favor physical proximity. To promote protection, it may be possible to add environmental cues signaling the possibility of infection-for example, through a novel avoidance history of disease contexts. In this way, the discriminative function of seeing a classmate at the playground or a coworker at the office (antecedents) is maintained for as long as there is a possibility of transmission (aversive consequences); conversely, the discriminative function is altered if the context changes.

During a pandemic, antecedents may also be powerful instruments of behavior change. In fact, some interventions to increase compliance with physical distancing include changing the salience of an antecedent by placing reminders at grocery stores [ 29] or in other public spaces [ 30]. Other interventions include the transfer of function with messages referring to physical distancing as a sign of respect and caring for others [ 31, 32]. Furthermore, it is possible to implement antecedents that signal delayed consequences. These emphasize the link between physical contact and negative delayed outcomes both for individuals and at the level of public health [ 33, 34]. In the remainder of this section, we illustrate these principles by offering an analysis of how they can be understood and applied.

2.2.1. Salience of Antecedent Stimuli

The salience of antecedent stimuli can be increased through messages conveyed by news channels, international and governmental calls for action, public campaigns, and so on. Increasing the intensity of certain environmental events can favor the extent to which they are observed and responded to. Thus, this increases the likelihood of behaviors controlled by similar stimuli in previous contexts. For instance, stores may place salient floor and poster information signals with setting requirements for physical distancing [ 35], or they may provide audio warnings and hand sanitizer in strategic places [ 36]. However, this would be ineffective if individuals did not see the messages on the floor or hear the cues on the speakers. For this reason, a cluster of stimuli might be more effective. If antecedent events for protective behaviors are less salient than the opportunity for close social contact, the rates of the former are likely to be smaller-overshadowing; [ 37]. Even though increasing the salience of antecedent stimuli may increase compliance with protective behaviors, it may not guarantee their recurrence nor the necessary levels of engagement to lower R ₀ values-see [ 38]. It is necessary that the antecedents are salient and linked to the consequences of behavior, which are part of an individual's learning history.

2.2.2. Transfer of Function

Effective communication aimed at informing about the risk of contamination by physical contact can change the reinforcing value and the discriminative function of another person's presence [ 39]. A motivating operation (MO) is a contextual event that significantly alters the effects of consequences on behavior (value-altering effect), and the evocative function of antecedents (behavior-altering effect) [ 40, 41]. MOs can also alter the function of stimuli which influence behavior by decreasing the chances of future occurrences. This may alter the function of consequences from reinforcing to punishing and establish an antecedent to abolish behavior. Moreover, motivating operations have a behavior-altering effect through discriminative stimuli that were previously associated with a reinforcing or aversive event. Laraway et al. [ 40] noted that "the behavior-altering effects of MOs may depend on the presence of relevant discriminative stimuli" (p. 412)-see also [ 42]. Verbal stimuli are events that modulate such functions, mainly by facilitating the establishment of responding according to stimulus equivalence [ 43] when the function exerted by one stimulus is transferred to another that becomes part of the same equivalence class. In sum, effective communication could be a feasible way to promote the transfer of function by altering the motivational states and the role of antecedent events.

The discriminative function of events may change depending on how agencies describe the consequences of physical contact compared to the consequences of no physical contact. Formal and informal communication channels may be used to change the discriminative function of physical contact-for example, by pairing that behavior with a stimulus that elicits unpleasant responses, thus prompting a change in stimulus valence (i.e., evaluative conditioning) [ 44, 45, 46]. These behavioral processes can decrease the evocative power of another person's presence and increase the averseness of their physical proximity while decreasing the probability of physical contact or proximity (i.e., an abolishing operation) [ 42, 43, 47]. Effective communication can also improve face mask wearing and other protective behaviors by describing and showing models of how it may be a sign of caring for and respecting the community. Thus, these and other favored environmental events may signal that protective behaviors are likely to be followed by social approval (consequence).

Establishing physical contact as a pre-aversive event may also be a feasible measure to increase the frequency of such behavior. As Sunstein [ 48] stated, "getting very close to other customers in a grocery store had, in many places, a clear social meaning: 'I don't care about your health." (p. 3), which would hardly have been the case in the social context preceding the pandemic. Thus, it seems possible to foster physical distancing without necessarily enforcing it in terms of formal consequences (e.g., fines as punishment) beyond its function as a social norm [ 49]. Even without a history of direct association with unconditioned stimuli (i.e., each individual experiencing infection), environmental events can derive a signaling function of the high probability of aversive consequences, and thus decrease the occurrence of risk behaviors [ 50].

2.2.3. Signal Delayed Consequences

During the early stages of a pandemic, low infection and mortality rates may signal delayed consequences of contracting the disease if protective behaviors are not adopted. The likelihood of engaging in these behaviors might be associated with the width of the temporal window during which reinforcers are integrated [ 51]. Individuals with shorter temporal windows tend to increase the value of more immediate reinforcers, while individuals with larger temporal windows may increase the value of more delayed reinforcers. Antecedent manipulations may extend individuals' temporal windows and increase the value of delayed reinforcers. Interventions such as "episodic future thinking", according to which one needs to vividly imagine and describe a realistic future event, [ 52, 53] could be implemented on a large scale in an attempt to extend individuals' temporal windows and increase the reinforcing value of adopting protective measures. Another example is to provide a description of the link between not adopting protective behaviors and the delayed consequences of an eminent pandemic outbreak [ 54]. Countries whose citizens' behavior is under control of (i.e., have a history of correspondence between communication-contingency) warnings delivered by the scientific community and the government have an advantage in delivering effective messages about delayed outcomes.

2.3. The Behavior-Consequence Component

The effects of consequences on a behavior depend on several factors, including delay and probability-see [ 55], concurrent consequences [ 56, 57], and whether an individual's behavior produces positive and delayed consequences or avoids aversive and immediate consequences [ 58]. Many of the challenges in shifting behavior during the COVID-19 crisis are related to such paradoxes. In the next section, we describe the effects of consequences on protective behaviors. Specifically, we exemplify them by describing the effects of competing consequences, aversive versus reinforcing consequences, and the paradox of immediate versus delayed consequences.

2.3.1. Competing Consequences

The allocation of behavior across activities may be understood from a paradigm of choice. According to this perspective, an organism's engagement or avoidance in varied activities covaries with the frequency and magnitude of phylogenetically important events (PIEs) related to these activities. This leads to a permutation of preponderance of activities according to the relative distribution of PIEs, which are shaped throughout their natural selection history [ 56]. For example, socializing is a PIE, insofar as it is selected during our evolutionary history, but the specific forms through which individuals socialize are shaped throughout their individual learning history. Physical contact may provide frequent reinforcers with a greater magnitude when compared with socializing on online platforms. In the latter, the frequency of interpersonal interaction could be higher but with lower magnitude. Moreover, while physical contact is a PIE, the use of online tools to avoid physical contact is learned. In parallel, each form of behavior could produce aversive events, such as contracting the virus by physical contact, experiencing loneliness while distancing. As change can be hampered by these background learning histories, protective behaviors often imply refraining from activities that systematically vary together with both harmful (contracting the virus) and reinforcing (socializing) consequences. This conflict may be mitigated by enabling alternative behaviors and alternative sources of reinforcement.

It is essential that alternative activities are part of the repertoire of the practicing individual, that they are well designed, and easily accessible. Not everyone is able to work from home or socialize online; therefore, alternative activities must be available. Restraining activities without enabling alternative behaviors is ineffective and may produce collateral effects. For example, this may increase stress, aggressive behavior, boredom, depression, and the use of alcohol and other drugs as a function of deprivation of previous activities and their former reinforcing consequences [ 59, 60, 61, 62, 63].

2.3.2. Punishing Versus Reinforcing Consequences

Among direct consequences, "social distancing helps limit contact with infected people and contaminated surfaces" [ 19]. From a functional standpoint, when physical distancing and other protective behaviors are maintained by preventing an aversive event from occurring (i.e., contamination, death, or peer's judgment), they are negatively reinforced: that is, behavior increases in frequency after avoiding an aversive consequence. However, when there is a low adherence to protective behaviors at the population level and the rate of transmission is high despite individual compliance, the conditional relation between protective behaviors and the avoidance of aversive events seems broken from an individual standpoint (avoidance response) [ 64]. In turn, increased rates of transmission may create a context in which fewer individuals adopt protective behaviors, decreasing further the extent of compliance with rules that describe protective behavior in a deleterious spiral. This is a case of extinction of avoidance behavior, wherein negative emotional and aggressive responses have been extensively documented [ 65]. This scenario features unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events [ 66], and is predictive of learned helplessness, apathy, and impulsivity, e.g., [ 67, 68]. Some interventions introduce pre-aversive events in the form of law enforcement that include fines and imprisonment for non-compliers. For example, as of 27 March 2020, Singapore was one of several countries to threaten punishment for the violators of physical distancing norms and Argentina and Jordan for breaching quarantine rules [ 69]. In this way, immediate negative consequences are imposed for failing to comply to quarantine rules, with the severity varying according to national laws.

2.3.3. Immediate Versus Delayed Consequences

Whereas physical contact is a powerful source of social reinforcement, the context of the pandemic poses different schedules of reinforcement with concurrent consequences that have different cost and reward delays. On one hand, proximal physical contact still produces immediate social reinforcers, however it also produces delayed aversive consequences (getting infected). On the other hand, there is an immediate averseness or cost to engage in protective behavioral measures (physical distancing), however it produces a delayed negative reinforcer (avoiding getting sick). Previous studies have shown that delayed consequences have a reduced value. "The tendency to devalue a reward when required to postpone its receipt" [ 70] is called delay discounting. Hyperbolic curves best represent this phenomenon, in which delayed consequences lose subjective value and individuals show higher chances of engaging in behaviors producing immediate rather than delayed consequences [ 71]. This imbalance implies a lower propensity to adopt protective behaviors. Impulsive choices intend a preference for the option that grants access to immediate reinforcers of lower magnitude (physical contact) and delayed aversive consequences (sickness), over the option that grants access to immediate aversive consequences (physical distance) and delayed reinforcers of greater magnitude (good health).

There are other variables that affect the rates of compliance with protective behaviors. For example, it is not possible to work remotely in several occupations, which may lead part of the population to economic stress and produce a negative shock on the collective's income. Some studies suggested that negative income shock tends to increase the discount rate of delayed consequences. For example, Haushofer et al. [ 72] adopted an experimental setting in which the participants received "rich" endowments or "poor" endowments and found that negative income shock operated on the effects of discounting, wherein poverty increased discounting (i.e., increased impulsive choices as the variables were manipulated in a real effort task). Moreover, negative income shocks may also result in short-term choices, such as by reading narratives increasing discount rates, whether experimentally arranged or self-generated-similar to media content; [ 73, 74]. Conditions underlying impulsive choices may lead to a variety of behaviors that aggravate the negative effects of the pandemic, directly and indirectly. They may decrease the adoption of protective behaviors and health habits that require self-control, and increase the occurrence of undesirable behaviors, such as the consumption of alcohol, drugs [ 75], and empty calorie food sources [ 76].

There are several interventions that show positive effects in fostering self-control [ 53, 77]: for example, the use of commitment strategies to plan conditions for self-control at the individual and group level. These strategies create a contingency (or group contingencies, in the case of several agents) to favor compliance with self-controlled behavior. In organizational contexts, the government could offer fiscal and economic incentives to employers who commit to retain at least a portion of their employees rather than setting them on leave. Concerning self-hygiene, hand washing could be difficult to establish in communities without basic sanitation, but soap dispensers could be maintained by public and private initiatives at strategic points within a community as an emergency measure. Praise and approval for engaging in target behaviors provide immediate consequences that may be available in a covert form or through the social mediation of other individuals encompassing the agent.

Another way to improve self-control and social contact while maintaining interpersonal distance is to develop social or communitarian online networks, thus creating a collaborative decision-making process. Two studies suggested that collaborative decisions tend to decrease the discounting rate. Charlton et al. [ 78] observed that delayed outcomes were relatively more valuable (with flatter slopes and less discounting) when others are involved in the decision process. Additionally, the socially closer to one another the members of a group are, the lower discount rate they are likely to display. Similarly, Bixter et al. [ 79] observed that intertemporal preferences of individual group members shaped the decisions of a group (e.g., tending to present an average discounting rate of the individuals who "preceded" the formation of the group). Individuals' choices are influenced by the experience of collaborative decision-making, as they are adjusted to the discounting rate of the group.

3. Putting Behavioral Principles Together: Example of Functional Analysis

A functional analysis consists of a systematic examination of the covariation between behavioral classes, antecedents, and consequences; it takes into account all the properties of each element that were described above. For example, analyzing physical distancing allows one to define how this behavioral class looks in terms of topography, temporality, frequency, effort, the context where the behavior takes place, identifying the antecedents in terms of salience level, discriminative function, and so on. It also identifies the consequences of behavior-how they are competing, their immediacy, whether they are reinforcing or aversive. It is important to note that the development and implementation of a behavioral vaccine must fit a functional analysis and be appropriate to (i.e., compatible with) the social context where it is applied. A functional analysis of targeted behaviors may reveal incomplete contingencies, in several ways. For example, when antecedents do not acquire discriminative function or when they are overshadowed by other stimuli present in the environment, their presence will not suffice to prompt behavior. Similarly, consequences can be delayed in time or competing, and so on. Hence, the absence of proper conditions may lead to low rates of adopting protective behaviors. At the population level, interventions that do not address any element of a contingency may lead to a lack of compliance with protective behaviors [ 80].

With a view to understanding the contingencies that may hinder behavioral change and the persistence of dysfunctional patterns at the individual level, we suggest a pragmatic effort to identify and rate their antecedent events and consequences. We suggest introducing an adapted version of the PIC/NIC Analysis [ 81] for rating the consequences of protective behaviors or any other target behavior. Originally applied to organizational behaviors within performance management, this analytic tool is used to identify and rate the occurrence and sustainability of pinpointed behavior. The initials of its acronym refer to potential functions, temporality, and probability of environmental consequences over analyzed behaviors. PIC refers to positive, immediate, and certain events, whereas NIC refers to negative, immediate, and certain. Although it is not a scientific method, it allows one to systematically analyze the often concurrently antecedent and consequences of behavior, from the perspective of the performer. It is particularly useful for understanding the obstacles to behavioral change by rating their consequences along three axes: (i) positive (P) or negative (N), (ii) immediate (I) or delayed (D), and (iii) certain (C) or uncertain (U). Throughout our analysis, we replace the positive and negative classification of consequences with reinforcing (R) and punitive (P) outcomes. In fact, positive and negative consequences are based on their value, whereas reinforcing and punitive outcomes are based on their function and suit better the objectivity of the analysis. Regarding antecedent events, we systematized their relational features according to their function on favoring behaviors' occurrence: (i) salient (S) or faded (F); (ii) discriminative (D) or neutral (N). In addition, contextual events with the capacity of altering the reinforcing value of consequences should also be listed as motivating operations (MOs). Engaging in this analysis is a way of evaluating how consequences establish and maintain protective behaviors in the scenario of a pandemic. According to Lattal and Porritt [ 82], this allows decision makers to "examine and categorize the known environmental variables that act on the behavior of interest" (p. 33).

In the next section, we put forward brief and illustrative example of a functional analysis of physical distancing, which can be extended to other protective behaviors (e.g., hand washing, face mask wearing, isolation and quarantine, etc.). Moreover, we attempt a PIC/NIC analysis for explaining some of the consequences of physical distancing that are not only contingent (PIC, NIC), but also uncertain to a lesser degree (PIU), which are able to exert a stronger influence. Conversely, consequences that occur or may occur in the future are less powerful to maintain the target behavior. In terms of antecedents, conducting a functional analysis allows for identifying events from the behavioral setting that play different roles in favoring, inhibiting, or exerting no influence on the occurrence of the target behavior.

Functional Analysis of Physical Distancing

Physical distancing is amongst the most effective behavioral measures against the further spread of COVID-19, and it aims to "minimize the risk of direct transmission of the virus via inhaled droplets" [ 83], p. 2. Before targeting how physical distancing may be shaped and maintained, it must be operationally defined. Guidelines have been issued and revised-for example, the recommended physical distance has gone from 1 m (or 3 feet) to 2 m (or 6 feet) [ 19], and back to 1 m in some countries-e.g., [ 84]. Moreover, assembling in crowds is prohibited in several countries (e.g., no more than 2 to 5 people, depending on local guidelines) and situations in which compliance with the minimum physical distancing cannot be met should be avoided whenever possible. This includes avoiding public transportation, purchasing groceries at off-peak hours, setting limits to how many customers may enter simultaneously a public premise, and canceling organized sports training and events. Table 1 depicts physical distancing and its antecedents in terms of discriminative or neutral, and salient or faded, and consequences in terms of reinforcing or punishing, immediate or delayed, and certain or uncertain.

Table 1

Antecedents

S/F

D/N

Response

Consequences

R/P

I/D

C/U

Presence of other

S

D

Physical distancing (2 m or 6 feet apart from one another)

Income loss (when physical contact is necessary to work)

P

I

C

Humans are ultra-social animals [ 85], and many of the reinforcers that shape and maintain our behavior involve physical contact. The presence of colleagues, friends, and family is often a salient antecedent, signaling (S, D) that greeting each other with a hug or handshake will be followed by immediate positive reactions such as smiles and a warm chat (R, I, and C). On the other hand, not engaging in physical contact may signal (D) indifference or coldness to others (P and I, C). In this case, peers are antecedents for influencing physical contact by both immediate reinforcers and punishers. Furthermore, the phenomenon of social discounting predicts that the interests of people who are socially more distant to the agent have "less value" than those who are closer [ 86]. This entails that the agent may physically distance from people they know, although failing to do the same in other circumstances [ 87, 88]. Furthermore, the phenomenon of social discounting predicts that the interests of people who are socially more distant to the agent have "less value" than those who are closer [ 88]. This entails that the agent may physically distance from people they know, although failing to do the same in other circumstances [ 87, 88]. Unless alternative antecedents aiming to change the discriminative function of antecedents and additional consequences are available, it is less likely for individuals to behave in a way that hinders infecting strangers or socially distant people.

Examples of interventions include media campaigns that emphasize pandemic health risks, and distance as a sign of respect and care for others. If well-implemented, they may change the discriminative function of peer's presence, so it becomes an antecedent signaling (D) for interacting within a safe distance (i.e., 2 m). Media efforts can also transform the function of consequences, when interacting from a safe distance becomes a sign of caring, and physical contact a lack of respect. If such contingencies become part of a cultural practice, the presence of others will become an antecedent signing that physical distance leads to reinforcing, immediate, and certain consequences (R, I, and C), whereas physical contact will have a punishing, immediate, and certain consequence (P, I, and C).

Highlighting the possibility of getting sick by physical contact points out to punishing, yet delayed and uncertain consequences (P, D, and U). It is important, but it may not be sufficient to change the discriminative function represented by the presence of others. In this context, governmental agencies, parents, schools, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector may provide contextual-specific instructions describing other immediate and delayed consequences. Such instructions may inform the cumulative effect of noncompliance, the risk of infecting others even when symptoms are not present, and so on. Instructions are verbal stimuli aiming to alter the discriminative function of antecedents, motivational operations, and the value of reinforcement and punishment [ 39, 89]. The efficacy of instructions will depend on the individual history of following instructions, but also on how instructions are phrased. They can target reinforcing, delayed, and uncertain consequences (R, D, and U), such as the effects of controlling local transmission rates in case of large-scale compliance, or it can focus on punishing, delayed, and uncertain consequences (P, D, and U)-for example, highlighting the spread of the virus.

Even when the presence of others acquires discriminative function for physical distancing, contextual modifications may increase compliance by altering the salience of antecedents. For example, signs may be added on grocery store floors to prompt the distance to be observed between customers, and benches in public spaces may be marked in a way that people avoid sitting next to each other (S). Similar to the function of a prompt, these comprise nudges which refer to environmental cues aimed at steering behavior without coercing it-see also [ 90].

Antecedents are environmental variables that covary with consequences, providing cues for the emission of behavior. Nevertheless, consequences ultimately select and maintain behavior, as well as the discriminative function of antecedents. Physical distancing may be maintained by several concurrent consequences: for a worker whose job depends on physical proximity, following guidelines of physical distancing will lead to a loss in income (P, I, and C), whereas caring out his/her work normally may lead to keeping, at least partially income (R, I, and C). Given that money is a generalized conditioned reinforcer (i.e., gives access to other reinforcers), the consequences for physical distancing may be weighted out by all reinforcers that can be exchanged for money. Thus, individuals whose income depends on physical proximity must have access to financial support, and/or the reinforcers that are accessible by physical proximity. This includes cash transfer programs and the provision of other reinforcers (e.g., support for basic needs, such as rent and food). When possible, initiatives must provide the means for individuals to engage in work activities, while observing physical distancing. Otherwise, interventions that address behavioral change exclusively through the manipulation of antecedent events might only have moderate and temporary effects.

To overcome some of the gaps in the behavior-consequence component of a behavioral contingency, controlling agencies could override delayed reinforcers and immediate aversive consequences of physical distancing by assigning immediate benefits [ 91]. For example, companies, public spaces, and other agglomeration environments (e.g., public transportation) that manage and deploy measures for safeguarding physical distancing, could receive tax discounts, media recognition, and awards at events in specific sectors of commerce (R, I, and C). Thus, they could establish a concurrent reinforcing contingency.

Physical distancing can cause social isolation, as proximity starts to produce aversive consequences, while distancing leads to reinforcing events. The greater the isolation, the more likely the individual is to experience an extinction procedure and process; hence, unpleasant emotional responses. Reducing the costs of alternative responses (substitute events) may comprise an alternative. The consequences of physical distancing may have transformed through the mediation of internet-based technology. The probability of social experience without contact could increase if the costs of internet, computers and all devices were reduced [ 92]. Besides, individuals can gain access to other activities that could also be enjoyed. For instance, attending a streamed online concert permits experiencing a similar (yet attenuated) music enjoyment rather than attending a live concert in person.

These examples of functional analysis adapted from PIC/NIC analysis point to some gaps challenging compliance to physical distancing. Next section advances a framework resting on culturo-behavior science for planning interventions at population level. We argued that effective interventions should incorporate a well-established functional analysis in order to cluster the three elements. It is important to consider that incomplete contingencies may be inefficient to promote physical distancing or any other behavior over time. Nevertheless, during a pandemic, countermeasures should be subsidized and not taxed by their social meanings [ 48]. Once the environmental variables (antecedents and consequences) are known, competent agencies should organize actions to ensure behavioral change on a large scale, in a coordinated fashion. Controlling agencies are composed of the interchanged behavior of more than one individual and have the power to control contingencies on a large scale by adding, removing, or restricting access to environmental events. They should form a dynamic system, a national or culturo-behavioral immunological system to combat the pandemic, which we describe in the following section.

4. Developing a System Response to COVID-19 and Preparedness for Future Outbreaks

The widespread administration of pharmacological vaccines not only affects immunized individuals, but it also has an indirect effect at the population level: this is termed herd protection-or herd immunity; see [ 93]. While the consequences of not participating in vaccination programs are delayed and probabilistic, insofar as it may be possible to contract a disease, there is an immediate response cost to participating (e.g., time, effort, and possible mild collateral effects). Moreover, the cost of engaging in a vaccination program weighed against the probability and delay to be infected is affected by the number of committed individuals. If enough people are immunized, the individual cost of vaccination does not change, whereas the probability of infection is both decreased and delayed. It is possible to observe similar paradoxes in the case of a behavioral vaccine.

Although cooperating at the level of small groups is part of our evolutionary history, behaving towards group-relevant outcomes depends on constrains for self-serving practices. These within-group dynamics aim at preventing undesirable outcomes of conflicting contingencies between individual interest and group common goals. Outcomes that are relevant for society can be even less prominent and, therefore, suffer higher levels of discounting. Undesirable outcomes at the societal level can be prevented by implementing interventions that deliberately manipulate variation and selection processes, taking into account the inherited capability to learn from environmental consequences (i.e., the behavior-consequence component) and inherited behavioral patterns (phylogenesis) [ 94]. Increasing the rate of compliance with protective behavior ought to take these variables into consideration when designing antecedents and consequences that can connect individuals' behaviors to the delayed and probabilistic effects of non-compliance.

Whereas the behavior of each member in a population-wide response is influenced by its interaction with the environmental variables (antecedents and consequences), the cumulative effect of the cultural practice reflects the population's cumulative behaviors at large. As long as the only currently effective resource to control the COVID-19 pandemic is the population's adherence to the advice of the health authorities, the R ₀ and CFR will vary according to each nation's completion of three-term contingencies. Thus, a functional analysis of contingencies and practices should consider both individual behavior and cumulative effects of those practices [ 52]. Conversely, simple gaps can determine the failure of large-scale strategies that aim at promoting novel practices.

Cultural practices are shared behavioral patterns that, when accumulated, can positively and negatively influence the outcomes of a social issue, such as the rate of a virus spread. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, they can be measured as rates of engagement with protective behaviors advised by health authorities, whereas their cumulative effect is measured as infection and death rates, as well as social and economic indicators [ 95]. Macrocontingency is an approach used to address the cumulative effect generated by several individual behaviors, which in sum can have a social impact [ 96]. Figure 2 depicts the relationship between non-recommended (a) and recommended (b) behaviors, and their cumulative effect when presented at large scale within a macrocontingency.

A timely adoption of protective behavioral practices has been shown to be an effective measure against the rapid rise of infection rates of the COVID-19 in several countries-e.g., [ 97]. We argue that linking and embedding them into cultural practices could possibly prevent larger social and economic effects of the pandemic, such as gender differences [ 98] or cultural complexities and biases [ 99]. Others have called for integrating findings from behavioral economics and infectious disease epidemiology for mitigating the pandemic, arguing that interventions should aim at changing social norms and spread further throughout the network [ 100]. Providing appropriate antecedents and consequences to complete potential gaps in the three-term contingency (antecedent-behavior-consequence) of individual behavior plays an important role in shifting behavior and cultural practices, and therefore preventing outbreaks from reaching uncontrollable levels. Thus, change can be promoted by manipulating variables that favor safer variation from previous behavioral patterns, selection of valuable practices for group-maintenance, and their replication at the population level. It is possible to achieve this shift by synchronizing the action of different agencies, including the media, the educational and health care systems, scientific and professional associations, and others-e.g., [ 101]. This implies envisioning the compound effects of reinforcing individual behavior in the short-term and the cultural selection of their combined effects.

In the next section, we turn to community-level analysis and discuss how behavioral interventions that are effective at the individual level can be extended to the level of groups and social systems.

4.1. From Macrocontingencies to Metacontingencies

In order to reach stable protection levels, the coordinated agency action towards shifting and maintaining protective practices must be sensitive to the different stages of a pandemic. For example, when epidemiological monitoring agencies detect a pathogen that can potentially lead to exponential spread, governmental executive agencies should promote context and consequences to stop it in a timely fashion. Next, the media and other societal organizations have the task of spreading this information. In such a network of coordinated actions, each agency's initiative becomes an antecedent or consequent event for the other agency's initiative, which is similar to the form of interlocking contingencies. Thus, we now extend the unit of analysis from individual contingencies to group contingencies (i.e., consequences contingent on the joint behavior of individuals in a group) to inform policymaking.

Within the context of an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases, the punctual provision of antecedents and consequences to favor protective behaviors can be efficient in promoting individuals' compliance. However, as the normalization phase approaches and the environment is less informative of the risks of infection, the maintenance of protective measures in a large-scale is less likely. Together with a phase of deceleration, population engagement might diminish, resulting in loosening compliance with hand washing, physical distancing, quarantine, and other recommended or mandatory practices. To prevent a forthcoming stronger wave or any future outbreaks, cultures need to incorporate the recommended behaviors since the initial signs of contagion. Although cultural practices emerge without the need for designs for intentional change [ 102], advancements in the culturo-behavior approach can inform policies that favor a faster and more effective development of new practices on a large-scale [ 103]. Thus, we discuss how a higher level of organized complexity requires the analysis of the interdependent behaviors of several members of the group, be it a community or society. The correct analysis of these behaviors is key to establishing appropriate, effective, and sustainable cultural practices, as these necessarily involve the coordination of individual efforts.

Behavioral patterns within a population are favored by physical and social similarities in the context-see [ 104]. However, the variables affecting behavior at a cultural level can overlap with a large variety of other stimuli that were important throughout the individual's learning and genetic background. Therefore, environmental cues that influenced behavior in the past may regain their controlling prevalent effect as soon as routines are re-established, unless efforts are taken to strengthen community engagement for an extended period. A promising path involves the development of interconnected networks of behavioral contingencies, rather than interventions uniquely at the individual level.

4.2. Metacontingencies of Support

The conditional relation between coordinated efforts of individuals (or organizations) towards an aggregate product and a cultural consequence is termed a metacontingency [ 96]. This concept encompasses processes through which interlocked behavioral contingencies (IBCs) are selected by the environment as one unit, together with the aggregated products from agents' interactions. Selection occurs at the cultural level, which means that the recurrence of a network of contingencies is dependent on cultural consequences. This functional relationship has been demonstrated in basic research [ 105], and has been identified in laws, social policies, and cultural phenomena [ 95, 106, 107].

Exploring the relevant elements in the selection and maintenance of coordination towards the "common good" can help agents from public or private spheres to contribute with the promotion of behavioral changes at the population level. In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, favoring preparedness involves a deliberate cultural design addressed to enhance the rapid engagement in protective behaviors. Figure 2 depicts a general example of coordinated efforts from different agents towards the promotion of a new behavioral pattern with protective effects at the population level. The illustration explores the intended change in defective behaviors that accumulate a high transmission rate in the face of the first signs of a respiratory infection into protective behavioral patterns-from maintaining activities with physical proximity to self-isolating.

This example comprises (1) a defective cultural practice as a societal problem due to its cumulative effects; (2) coordinated actions from different agents or agencies with the common goal of reducing the societal problem through the promotion of a new behavioral pattern; (3) the alternative behavioral pattern that can protect a community; and (4) selective consequences contingent on the targeted protective cultural practice. Government, science, media, schools, services, and non-governmental organizations are illustrated as examples of possible agents in a coordinated response towards fostering change in behavioral patterns at the population level. The agents, their roles, and the communication patterns within a system can vary according to the social issue, available resources, local practices, organizational structures, and so on, affecting their aggregate outcomes and their selection by cultural consequences. In the following paragraphs, we guide the reader through important elements and actions translated into general steps in which agents or agencies could engage to favor a rapid and successful implementation of cross-sector action to contain the spread of the virus. Special attention is given to strengthening the coordination between agents, which is key to providing a cohesive environment that can design and sustain novel cultural practices.

4.2.1. Define a Common Behavioral Goal

The establishment of successful interaction networks that can promote a permanent large-scale behavioral change requires that agents clearly define the aspect of the societal problem towards which they want to direct their combined action and affect. For example, the aim of "mitigating the COVID-19 crisis" would be partially informative regarding the practical steps in which each actor can engage. To gain precision, agents should identify which behavior they can impact by the sum of their efforts and doing so on a large-scale. For instance, stating the aim as "increasing the occurrence of self-isolating under signs of suspected infection" renders it more feasible to pursue, monitor, and assess.

In the case of any future outbreak, protective behaviors might not be as clearly recommendable as during the COVID-19 crisis. We suggest conducting functional analyses of the defective cultural practices that jeopardize a community's resilience and deriving alternative behaviors that could considerably improve health indicators in the same context. For example, this can be seen in elements 1 and 3 in Figure 3 , where self-isolation is proposed as the alternative to physical proximity at signs of infection. In some cases, it may be needed to develop new behaviors; in others, it may suffice to learn new topographies of old behaviors (e.g., handshaking).

4.2.2. Identify Essential Actions Towards Target Behavior

While setting arrangements to favor new behaviors or topographies is important, so is ensuring the conditions that promote their recurrence. Agents can work on antecedent conditions that set the occasion for the emergence of new topographies or alternative behaviors, and on access to reinforcers to establish and strengthen them. This step can be unfolded into two lines of action: (i) expanding the class of responses of "defective behaviors" to include safe topographies, and (ii) establishing new behaviors. The former includes presenting new antecedent conditions that can set the occasion for the emergence of new or less frequent responses with equivalent functions-for example, providing free internet access to replace traditional classes with distance learning strategies. Establishing alternative behaviors requires the arrangement of both new antecedent conditions and new reinforcers. Self-isolating at mild signs of respiratory infection is not a common practice in every culture, but it should be established in the future. This way, the risk of spreading the pathogen might not suffice to control one's compliance with health advice and additional environmental stimuli might be necessary. The concurrent consequences of attending a work meeting, a social gathering, or any other outdoor activity must be balanced by planned contextual events and short-term consequences.

To identify the essential actions to be taken, agents must map the potential gaps in the control exerted by the available antecedents and consequences in the context of the population, as exemplified in the functional analysis depicted in Table 1 , taking into consideration the population's background and repertoire. The expected aggregate product of the coordinated efforts between agents is illustrated in Figure 3 as the reoccurrence of a high adherence to self-isolation under confirmed or suspected infection.

Although physical distancing is enforced to limit any contact among individuals, it is still possible to engage in common activities and, thus, to gain access to their reinforcers while physically apart. For example, people can still engage in video chats and phone calls, hike in small groups while maintaining the recommended physical distance between one another, arrange a movie night within the household or online with friends, or work out at home while in quarantine or self-isolation. It is important that the agents and agencies involved in a coordinated response consider that new illnesses might also derive from the adoption of new topographies, such as addictions associated with prolonged exposure to screen time. In this case, the development of varied alternative topographies might be important while encouraging a reasonable balance across daily activities.

4.2.3. Map Essential Roles and Identify Promising Agents

Every essential action requires identifying roles with proper tools to perform them: these include executive, legislative, and judiciary branches; universities and research institutes; media; non-governmental organizations; representatives from specific populations; and others. For instance, possible roles and agents are illustrated in Figure 3 under element 2, interlocking behavioral contingencies (IBCs). The efficient delivery of environmental stimuli that both favor and strengthen behaviors at a large-scale level is affected by agencies' resources, channels of communication, and access to those in need of interventions [ 108]. In this sense, it is preferable that an agency's work is supported by a framework that ensures the availability of resources and continued actions. The possibility of the recurrence and transmission of practices is an essential aspect to be considered, regardless of the role played by a specific agent at whichever point in time.

In terms of access, effective measures can be taken by non-traditional agents. One example from the HIV epidemic was the program Live Better Knowing from the Ministry of Health of Brazil [ 109] in a combined effort with civil society organizations. Taking into account the stigmatized individuals who avoided seeking health care, representatives of the populations that were most affected by HIV were trained to perform oral tests to their peers. Through agents with privileged access to the target individuals, this strategy provided a clearer picture of the disease prevalence and facilitated governmental efforts of combined prevention. In the context of COVID-19, one of the most populous slums of São Paulo trained 240 of its residents as first responders and set up local emergency bases [ 110] thanks to the joint effort of unions, residents, the local fire department, and volunteers. Similar patterns were found by Ardila Sánchez et al. [ 95] in Puerto Rico while recovering from a natural disaster, wherein local agents worked collectively to provide solutions to the problems faced by the communities.

In terms of resources, if the interests of governmental leaders towards protecting power perpetuation overlaps societal needs, companies, citizens, and non-profit organizations have an even more crucial role during emergency situations [ 95]. Some agents may have financial, material, or conceptual resources that can favor large-scale behavioral change, but they may not have the means to make them accessible to the target individuals. Hence, their support must be combined with efforts from agents with delivery capacity. Concerning channels of communication, their relevance relies on how they can contribute to efficient coordination between agents in crisis scenarios. Delays, contradictory messages, and a lack of training can impair the ability of the system to promote a quick response for protecting the population [ 111].

4.2.4. Connect and Coordinate Actions

After identifying the collaborating actors, the next step is to connect them, as illustrated in Figure 3 by the arrows between the agents whose behaviors are part of a coordinated response. Antecedents and consequences need be presented in a synchronous manner to effectively establish the target behavior. Uncoordinated actions might result in the presentation of competing contingencies [ 112]. Public health agencies might recommend physical distancing without necessarily collaborating with other sectors responsible for education, labor, and technology. In this case, the modification of individual repertoires is unlikely. Paychecks are delivered to workers performing inside an organization; grades are assigned by a teacher who attends to a student taking a test at school; psychiatric services are delivered by physicians to patients in medical offices. In all these situations, engaging in activities with physical proximity is immediately reinforced. People may face a conflicting situation without a strong commitment from agencies to change their guidelines and present antecedent conditions to include the possibility of engaging in the same activities with physical distance. While physical distancing avoids harmful health outcomes, physical proximity grants access to other immediate social outcomes, such as wages, grades, or treatment.

4.2.5. Highlight Outcomes from Coordination

The selection of cultural practices that are beneficial for society should depend exclusively on the status of their cumulative effect. In the context of the COVID-19, this is illustrated in Figure 2 by the low transmission and death rates that can result from the set of novel protective cultural practices. When a system response is designed to and aims at promoting high adherence to a protective behavior, the aggregate product from the combined efforts by different agents corresponds to the accumulated effects of the novel practice. In this sense, outcomes on relevant health indicators from coordination should be highlighted to enable a feedback loop on their underlying actions. The provision of reliable information contingent on the achieved aggregate products facilitates the evaluation of the effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of the actions. Moreover, it creates an opportunity for continued collaboration towards the intervention plan, improving strategies or adjusting the route as necessary.

Actors need be able to verify the association between relevant health indicators (or their cumulative effect), such as changes in infection and death rates, and individual behavior (e.g., hand washing in public spaces and physical proximity). Hence, a monitoring and evaluation system could be implemented for reporting infection and death cases from local to central public health agencies in the fastest possible way so that the data inform the aggregate products of coordinated action. Real-time reporting using surveillance technologies including mobile data and tracking could be used as an alternative, although this approach brings ethical limitations that should be considered and overcome. In highly complex networks, the contribution of each actor in controlling infection and death rates might become clearer through intermediate and unbundled indicators. They should be more prone to repeat relevant behaviors in a coordinated fashion by having access to information on how their action increased the protection and safeguard among assisted communities.

Publicly accessible data of the social benefits achieved by a coordinated system would be not only a promising reinforcer to the behaviors of each actor involved but could also set cues for the population, endorsing their joint efforts. The aim is to facilitate the generation of cultural consequences that can select the combined efforts supporting the beneficial cultural practices and, therefore, their maintenance.

4.2.6. Cultural Consequences

The last aspect of a metacontingency to which we draw attention is its receiving system, as illustrated by item 4 in Figure 3 . The environmental events contingent on coordinated actions and their aggregate products can favor or hinder their recurrence. In the case of designed interventions, the timely visibility of the socially relevant aggregate products of a system response might be pivotal to increase its recurrence. While the coordinated efforts from agents are necessary for the provision of environmental influence on protective behaviors, the supporting agencies also need to have their initiatives strengthened. One might create a context for cultural selection processes by favoring public endorsement. The examples explored in Figure 3 go from cultural consequences that acknowledge the combined efforts of different agents as a whole to environmental events contingent to sub-systems in the web of interactions. Whilst citizens' endorsement of health workers' action in the front line of COVID-19 illustrates the increase of positive public opinion on coordinated efforts of involved agents, anti-lockdown protests exemplify how the receiving system can also respond in a way that adds obstacles to the maintenance of coordinated interventions.

In the case of community preparedness for the rapid installment of protective behaviors during future outbreaks, the more interconnected the supporting agencies' behavioral contingencies are, the more efficient they can be at detecting early signs of future infection waves. Thus, a cultural design can benefit from anticipating possible responses from the social environment, and from planning external visibility that can favor external demand which functions as a selective environmental consequence.

5. Conclusions

This work features the possible underlying principles of a COVID-19 behavioral vaccine for a sustainable cultural change. It provides an analysis of some of the behavioral variables for positive change during the outbreak of the current pandemic. We suggest that the present systematization of conceptual tools can favorably impact society in at least two ways. First, we put forward a framework for designing strategies to promote behavioral change based on the identified gaps in the three-term contingency of the target behaviors in each context. Then, we scaled up individual-level analysis to inform community-level policymaking. Second, we state that behavioral and cultural strategies to promote preventive practices are crucial to the effectiveness and sustainability of interventions. These should be functionally analyzed in terms of behavioral contingencies, scaled to macrocontingency analysis, and next metacontingencies of support should be designed to assure that a system response takes place and that cultural consequences are sustained. Specifically, the combined and mutually interdependent efforts of both agents and agencies are called to manage and contain the spread of the virus.

Developing and impoverished countries face additional challenges in terms of their economic hardship [ 113], which limits the long-term maintenance of lockdowns and other restraint measures. Notwithstanding this, quarantine and physical distancing have limited feasibility for informal workers and other vulnerable populations whose daily earnings are necessary to meet their basic needs. Thus, disproportionate social protection may exacerbate inequalities and expose population segments differently to the risks of infection due to the further obstacles present in underprivileged communities to adopting and maintaining the advised practices. We suggest that cohesive and coordinated policymaking action for delivering environmental events that favor adherence to protective behaviors at a large scale is key to reducing the length and severity of future outbreaks. Consequently, unnecessary health, social, and economic fragilities at the individual and community levels can be avoided. For example, Williams and Kayaoglu [ 114] suggested further policy responses beyond the effects of the COVID-19 on the undeclared economy and Gros et al. [ 3] modelled the economic recuperation with the implementation of behavioral measures by balancing public health and the economic costs of a lockdown.

Lastly, it is noteworthy that the development and implementation of a behavioral vaccine must be appropriate and compatible with the social context where it is applied. Therefore, any intervention proposition must involve ethical respect for the community's practices, and it must qualitatively probe their needs and objectives [ 115, 116, 117, 118]. It is of the utmost importance that a functional analysis and the following behavioral interventions are transparent and follow agreed-upon guidelines. They should be in the interests of the public, community, and laws and follow scientifically proven measures.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Tete Kobla Agbota, Fabio Baia, Gunnar Ree, Ingunn Sandaker, and Jan Wright for their precious inputs and comments throughout different stages of the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.C.C., F.M.L., M.T., M.B.H. and R.F.L.; project administration, K.C.C. and M.T.; visualization, F.M.L.; writing-original draft, K.C.C., F.M.L., M.T., M.B.H. and R.F.L.; writing-review & editing, K.C.C., F.M.L., M.T., M.B.H. and R.F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed by OsloMet-Oslo Metropolitan University and in part by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (Capes)-Finance Code 001. Article Processing Charges were funded by OsloMet-Oslo Metropolitan University (project number 415016).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

3. Gros C., Valenti R., Schneider L., Valenti K., Gros D. Containment efficiency and control strategies for the Corona pandemic costs. arXiv. 20202004.00493v2 [ Google Scholar]

20. Johnson C.Y. Social Distancing Could Buy U.S. Valuable Time against Coronavirus. The Washington Post. Mar 10, 2020.

31. Pfattheicher S., Nockur L., Böhm R., Sassenrath C., Petersen M.B. The Emotional Path to Action: Empathy Promotes Physical Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Center for Open Science; Charlottesville, VA, USA: 2020. [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

38. Gould D.J., Moralejo D., Drey N., Chudleigh J.H., Taljaard M. Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005186.pub4. [[ PMC free article] [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

43. Harte C., Barnes-Holmes D., Barnes-Holmes Y., Kissi A. The study of rule-governed behavior and derived stimulus relations: Bridging the gap. Perspect. Behav. Sci. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s40614-020-00256-w. [[ PMC free article] [ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

82. Lattal D., Porritt M. Translating the science of behavior analysis to the workplaec: One company's 30 year effort. Rev. Mex. Psicología. 2008;25:27-44. [ Google Scholar]

83. West R., Michie S., Rubin G.J., Amlôt R. Applying principles of behaviour change to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020 doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0887-9. [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Underlying Principles of a Covid-19 Behavioral Vaccine for a Sustainable Cultural Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Until pharmacological measures are effective at containing the COVID-19 outbreak, adopting protective behaviors is paramount. In this work, we aim at informing interventions to limit the spread of the contagion and prepare against any future outbreaks by developing a behavioral framework to interpret and prescribe both the individual and large-scale uptake of non-pharmaceutical measures.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/infectious-disease-experts-advise-health-care-facilities-drop-universal-mask-policies

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/family-of-toronto-woman-killed-after-not-wearing-mask-sues-hospital-and-security-guards/article_ab4599c0-9765-11ed-bd24-a711841e09f4.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://rumble.com/vwfia3-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In October 2020 Dr Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Show more

But on January 18th 2021, Dr Hill published his findings on a pre-print server. His methods lacked rigour, the review was low quality and the extremely positive findings on ivermectin were contradicted by the conclusion. In the end, Dr Hill advised that "Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities."

The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. A media onslaught against the medicine ensued. What were Dr Hill's reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?

One year on, this film recalls exactly what happened from the perspective of somebody that experienced it first hand; Dr Tess Lawrie; also featuring contributions from Dr Pierre Kory and Dr Paul Marik who worked closely with Dr Hill during the same time frame.

⁣If you like what Oracle Films does, you can support us here: buymeacoffee.com/oraclefilms ⁣

Follow us on Telegram: t.me/OracleFilms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Letter to Dr Andrew Hill | Dr Tess Lawrie | Oracle Films

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In October 2020 Dr Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Show more But on January 18th 2021, Dr Hill published his findings on a pre-print server.

# data[].attributes.body
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/04/28/state-covid-propaganda-destroyed-publics-ability-to-consent-to-vaccines-chairman-of-uk-council-for-psychotherapy/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There follows an open letter from Dr. Christian Buckland, Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy, to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemning the "use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural science on the unknowing and non-consenting U.K. public". Among numerous harms are that the use of techniques to increase fear, shame and guilt "materially undermined, if not removed, the U.K. population's ability to give valid informed consent to taking a COVID-19 vaccine".
April 28th 2023

Dear Prime Minister,

I am the Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), one of the UK's foremost psychological governing bodies. However, I write this open letter in my own capacity. I believe I have a professional obligation to write to you in an attempt to protect the public from any further harm caused by the unethical application of psychological research and practice.

I unreservedly condemn the U.K. Government's use of unethical psychological techniques intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt, under the guise of behavioural science and insights which were designed to change the public's behaviour without their knowledge and conscious participation. It is now clear that in 2020 the U.K. Government deliberately chose to artificially inflate the level of fear within the U.K. population by exaggerating the risk factors of COVID-19, and concomitantly downplaying the protective factors. We also witnessed the Government's promotion of social disapproval and guilt messaging. These techniques were embedded into a multi-channel, co-ordinated public health campaign designed to change the public's behaviour without their knowledge. Moreover, in tandem with the mainstream media, the Government also proactively suppressed, censored and ostracised any healthcare professional or scientist who suggested alternative responses to COIVD-19, or who simply questioned the messaging and measures being implemented by the Government.
Evidence of the recommendation of using unethical psychological techniques to gain behavioural change
The Government document titled ' Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures ' was written for the Government by the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).

The premise of the document was to provide options for changing the behaviour of the U.K. public without their knowledge. A passage within this document states: "A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened". It makes certain recommendations including:

"The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard hitting emotional messaging"

"Coercion"

"Social disapproval"

The recommendations made by SPI-B included ones intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt. Psychological practitioners know that deliberately trying to frighten someone into change with erroneous or exaggerated information can easily cause long-term psychological damage. We also know that using social disapproval can create splits and divisions within society, and that inducing feelings of guilt can elevate the risk of suicide.

SPI-B also included a simple risk assessment matrix which acknowledges that the "spill over effects" of using media to increase the sense of personal threat and of using social disapproval "could be negative". There is also a statement demonstrating there was a conversation regarding the spill over effects, although this does not appear to be fully documented. The risk factors and ethics of using fear, shame, guilt and coercion would almost certainly have been known to the members of SPI-B because several members were British Psychological Society (BPS) registered chartered psychologists. In an interview with one of the members of SPI-B, BPS registered educational psychologist Dr. Gavin Morgan, he refers to the use of fear by his SPI-B colleagues and says (as relayed by Laura Dodsworth, in A State of Fear pp. 262,263):

"Clearly using fear as a means of control is not ethical. What you do as a psychologist is co-construction. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It's not an ethical stance for any modern government." ... Was it unethical to use fear, I asked? "Well I didn't suggest we use fear." But your colleagues did. What do you think of that? He paused. "Oh God." Another reluctant pause. "It's not ethical," he said.

Like Dr. Morgan, any BPS registered psychologists within SPI-B would or should have recognised that recommending the Government uses fear as a means of controlling the public breached their professional code of ethics and conduct. An urgent investigation is required both by the U.K. Government and the BPS. Two specific points of the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct (2021) that may have been broken are (with my emphasis):

3.3 Responsibility. Because of their acknowledged expertise, members of the Society often enjoy professional autonomy; responsibility is an essential element of autonomy. Members must accept appropriate responsibility for what is within their power, control or management. Awareness of responsibility ensures that the trust of others is not abused, the power of influence is properly managed and that duty towards others is always paramount. Statement of values: Members value their responsibilities to persons and peoples, to the general public, and to the profession and science of psychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society. In applying these values, psychologists should consider:

Professional accountability;

Responsible use of their knowledge and skills;

Respect for the welfare of humans, non-humans and the living world;

Potentially competing duties.

3.4 Integrity. Acting with integrity includes being honest, truthful, accurate and consistent in one's actions, words, decisions, methods and outcomes. It requires setting self-interest to one side and being objective and open to challenge in one's behaviour in a professional context. Statement of values: Members value honesty, probity, accuracy, clarity and fairness in their interactions with all persons and peoples, and seek to promote integrity in all facets of their scientific and professional endeavours ".

Evidence that psychological techniques to induce fear, shame, guilt and coercion were used on the U.K. public
The SPI-B document in question demonstrates that the options of eliciting feelings of fear, shame, guilt and the use of coercion was recommended to the U.K. Government. There is evidence that those options were indeed subsequently deployed on the U.K. population.

In August 2022, you stated:

In every brief, we tried to say: let's stop the 'fear narrative'. It was always wrong from the beginning. I constantly said it was wrong... It was wrong to scare people like that.

Additionally, leaked WhatsApp messages from the former Health Minister at the time, Matt Hancock, published in the Daily Telegraph in March 2023, confirm that fear and guilt were used:

Hancock: We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain. But the complications with that Brexit is taking the top line

Poole: Yep that's what will get proper bahviour (sic) change

Hancock: When do we deploy the new variant ...

Case: Ramping up messaging - the fear/guilt factor vital

The above are just two examples where senior Government Ministers recognised that fear and guilt was used as drivers for behavioural change of the UK population without their knowledge.
The existing literature
It is important to acknowledge that the above-mentioned psychological techniques were used on the U.K. population without their knowledge or consent, and that this in direct contradiction of long-established and carefully considered behavioural science advice which made clear that, in theory and practice, the consent of the public is paramount. According to a 2010 Institute for Government report:

The use of MINDSPACE (or other 'nudge' type policy tools) may require careful handling - in essence, the public need to give permission and help shape how such tools are used. (p10)

Continuing, the report states:

Policy-makers wishing to use these tools summarised in MINDSPACE need the approval of the public to do so. (p74)

Further literature supports that permission from the public is essential. David Halpern wrote in 2015:

If there is one great risk to the application of behavioural insights in policy, it is that the thread of public permission wears too thin. If governments, or indeed communities or companies, wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public to do so. (p365)

As there was no approval obtained, the options recommended and deployed were not in alignment with the principles of behavioural science.

It is important to highlight that the same kinds of techniques were used on children in relation to mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine uptake, with many techniques continuing into 2022. These techniques violated UNICEF's recommendations from its ethical toolkit for behavioural science projects directed at children. The tool-kit states:

A core idea underlying the applied behavioural science approach is that interventions should not restrict choice and should transparently communicate project goals. When designing an intervention, practitioners should determine how transparent it will be to those affected by it. They should ensure that children and parents can easily opt out, and should design feedback mechanisms so that children and their parents can voice concerns, see the outcomes of their objections, and hold decision-makers to account.

The behavioural science literature also indicates a potential link between the misuse of behavioural psychology and an increased risk of suicide, stemming from an All Party Parliamentary Group Report on the Morse Review into the Loan Charge in 2020. One of the recommendations within the report demands:

An independent assessment and a suspension of HMRC's use of behavioural psychology / behavioural insights, in light of the ongoing suicide risk to those impacted by the Loan Charge.

The literature highlights that approval from the public must be sought and maintained. Additionally, all behavioural science projects directed at children must have effective feedback mechanisms and methods of opting out, with decision makers able to be held accountable. There are also existing potential concerns that behavioural science may increase suicide levels. These important ethical aspects and safety signals appear to have been ignored. The lessons of history warn us that in times of existential crisis, whether real or only perceived, our ethics are at risk of being abandoned, and psychological knowledge can become misused by governments:

Under some historical conditions or circumstances and contexts, psychologists and psychological knowledge were in danger of being abused by political powers, largely for clandestine purposes, such as conducting torture or the persecution of political opponents. (Maercker A, Guski-Leinwand S, 2018)

It is of grave concern that the actions of the U.K. Government during the Covid era potentially fit into the category of abusing psychological knowledge and being absent of ethics, thus require serious investigation.
The impact of psychological pressure on informed consent
For the sake of brevity, I will not reiterate the multiple concerns already documented by others surrounding the consequences of the Government's actions around lockdown, hospital discharges, school closures and mask mandates. I do, however, wish to highlight one extremely serious consequence that I believe has occurred as a direct result of the use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural insights on the unknowing public: by adopting the techniques used, the Government significantly and materially undermined, if not removed, the U.K. population's ability to give valid informed consent to taking a COVID-19 vaccine.

According to Public Health England:

Consent must be obtained before starting any treatment or physical investigation or before providing personal care for a patient. This includes the administration of all vaccines.

Also,

It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting personal care, treatment or investigations.

Also,

For consent to immunisation to the (sic) valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion by an appropriately informed person who has the mental capacity to consent to the administration of the vaccines in question.

From the above, it is clear that for medical consent to be valid it must be given without coercion. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines coercion as:

The threat or use of punitive measures against states, groups or individuals in order for them to undertake or desist from specified actions. In addition to the threat of or limited use of force (or both), coercion may entail economic sanctions, psychological pressures, and social ostracism.

The psychological techniques used by the U.K. Government fall under that definition of coercion. If follows that according to Public Health England's statements and for the general public at least, consent to immunisation was invalidated by the behaviour of the U.K. Government. It is also important to highlight that there have been serious injuries and death directly linked to the COVID-19 vaccine. Many of those injured or who have died would not have taken a vaccine if they had not been psychologically pressured, feared being ostracised socially and were given accurate information.

The removal of the general population's ability to give informed medical consent is of the gravest concern, and a severe and dangerous consequence of using behavioural insights and psychological techniques on an unknowing public.
Conclusion
The need to hold tightly to professional ethics, in particular to the ethical principle of informed consent, is not just an 'academic' issue. It is a matter of practical and fundamental importance to responsible government.

According to David Halpern, "Behavioural insights, like any other form of knowledge, can be used for good or bad" (p348). It is my opinion that the use of behavioural insights and psychological techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt utilised by the U.K. Government since March 2020 has been unethical. The consequences are still unravelling but they appear to include serious damage to trust in government and its agencies, the NHS and the medical and scientific professions.

I propose that there be an immediate cessation of the use of all behavioural science techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt used by the Government pending an urgent, open and independent inquiry. This inquiry should also have as an objective the re-establishment of ethical frameworks necessary to protect the public and to provide accountability. I would welcome a discussion on this most important of matters.

Most respectfully

Dr. Christian Buckland

Doctor of Psychology in Psychotherapy and Counselling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Covid Propaganda Destroyed Public's Ability to Consent to Vaccines - Chairman of UK Council for Psychotherapy - The Daily Sceptic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There follows an open letter from Dr. Christian Buckland, Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy, to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemning the "use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural science on the unknowing and non-consenting U.K. public".

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/AntonioTweets2/status/1649977311184257029

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/michaelpsenger/status/1651261108513292288

# data[].attributes.body
https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/19/meet-the-shadowy-group-that-ran-the-federal-governments-censorship-scheme/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The State Department's Global Engagement Center used a cutout corporation headed by a former intelligence officer to fund and promote the blacklisting of conservative media outlets and other censorship endeavors, research by The Federalist reveals.

When Elon Musk gave a group of independent journalists access to internal Twitter communications, the resulting "Twitter Files" quickly revealed the existence of a Censorship-Industrial Complex that included an array of federal agencies colluding with social media companies to censor disfavored speech. One of the many federal players was the State Department's Global Engagement Center (GEC) - but GEC did much more than cajole tech giants to censor viewpoints the government didn't like.

As The Federalist previously reported, GEC funded the development of censorship tools and used "government employees to act as sales reps pitching the censorship products to Big Tech." Further investigation into its operations now reveals the government's GEC used one or more for-profit businesses to lead four separate censorship initiatives with contractors at times engaging in "inherently governmental functions."

This graphic from GEC provides a simple summary of its Technology Engagement Team (TET) initiatives, but Disinfo Cloud provides the best entry point to understanding GEC's other activities.

Disinfo Cloud Casts a Big Shadow

According to GEC's webpage, Disinfo Cloud is a "platform that acts as a repository to catalogue an ever-growing list of CPD tools and technologies," with "CPD" standing for "countering propaganda and disinformation." While originally available only to ".mil and .gov" users, access was later opened to the private sector.

Then as part of its "Silicon Valley Engagement" initiative, GEC pushed social media companies to join Disinfo Cloud, which helped users identify technologies for censoring speech. This has huge First Amendment implications because although many details of Disinfo Cloud's operations and funding remain obscure, it's clear U.S. tax dollars funded both the platform's development and maintenance.

A State Department spokesman previously explained that an outside group, Park Advisors, managed Disinfo Cloud, awarding the group approximately $300,000 to manage the platform. Christina Nemr, a former State Department employee who had been a founding member of the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program, served as the director of Park Advisors and the administrator of Disinfo Cloud.

Park Advisors Overshadowed the GEC

While Disinfo Cloud was a GEC initiative, it appears Park Advisors and Nemr controlled the platform at DisinfoCloud.com, which has since been shuttered. Park Advisors has also recently removed the content of its webpage, leaving only the landing page. A still-available video, however, shows Nemr explaining the repository.

After Disinfo Cloud identified a tool for countering so-called "disinformation," Nemr's team would conduct open-source research to learn everything possible about the tool, including who made it and what technology was involved, and then summarize the research in a one- to three-page report. Next, Disinfo Cloud would contact the tool's creator, requesting a remote demonstration and seeking more technical details, after which it would compile a 10- to 12-page report on the technology. Disinfo Cloud had reviewed about 200 different technologies, which were added to its repository.

Disinfo Cloud also helped users - including private social media companies - identify the best available censorship tools "to counter propaganda and disinformation."

Publicly available information indicates Park Advisors and Nemr did much more than create and manage Disinfo Cloud. Its subscribers also received a weekly "Disinfo Digest," which Nemr launched in December 2020 to inform users "of the latest news, events, funding opportunities, and other updates related to disinformation, including from the tech vendors featured on Disinfo Cloud."

Along with promoting its own platform, Disinfo Cloud's Twitter account also promoted Disinfo Digest and the Tech Demo Series. The account also amplified the marketing of private censorship tools and companies, such as the unreliable media-ratings organizations Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard.

Disinfo Cloud Plugs Tech Demo Series

The aforementioned government-promoted Tech Demo Series purported to feature "promising technologies to employ against the problems of propaganda and disinformation." But the fact that Disinfo Cloud highlighted the Tech Demo Series suggests the infomercial-like demonstrations of censorship technology were open to non-governmental groups, such as Big Tech.

However, the GEC webpage says the audience for these virtual demos "is composed of U.S. government counterparts and foreign partners," leaving unclear whether the Tech Demo Series marketed censorship technology to outsiders and, if so, how. It is also unclear whether Disinfo Cloud or GEC hosted the Tech Demo Series.

Park Advisors Controlled GEC's Testbed

While Disinfo Cloud's role in the Tech Demo Series is unclear, GEC's "Testbed" operated from Disinfo Cloud, and Park Advisors also managed that government initiative.

According to GEC's webpage, " Testbed" "tests specific tools or technologies against a submitted proposal," over the course of six to eight weeks to see how successful the tools are in countering supposed propaganda in "real operational" situations. While GEC's current descriptor of "Testbed" says the State Department organization "solicits real challenges of the U.S. government (USG) to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation," when Park Advisors ran Disinfo Cloud and Testbed, the GEC webpage explained that the two initiatives were used by "academia, private sector, and tech vendors," and directed users to ask Disinfo Cloud for assistance in drafting "a test proposal for a tool."

Of the 200-some technologies on Disinfo Cloud, only some piloted on Testbed. But according to Nemr, GEC paid vendors $25,000 to complete the six- to eight-week assessment.

Park Advisors Organized GEC Challenges

In addition to managing Disinfo Cloud and the GEC Testbed, Park Advisors was also involved in GEC's "Tech Challenges." Nemr, the Park Advisors director, even boasted of organizing three international Tech Challenges (in Asia, Africa, and Europe). The GEC webpage also credited Park Advisors and Disinfo Cloud with collaborating with the State Department for the U.S.-Africa, U.S.-Paris, and U.S.-Taiwan Tech Challenges.

Nemr stressed that eight awards were granted. At least two of the monetary awards went to organizations targeting conservatives - including news outlets - for censorship, namely the Global Disinformation Index and the Institute of Strategic Dialogue. Despite purporting to fund foreign-based tech experts "to implement a tool, locally, to address misinformation and disinformation challenges in the region," these U.S.-Paris Challenge awardees reached squarely into the American marketplace of speech.

The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) purports to assess the "disinformation risk" of media outlets and declares conservative media, including The Federalist, as the "Ten Riskiest Online News Outlets." In contrast, the supposedly "Ten Lowest-Risk Online News Outlets" consist of a who's who of left-wing legacy outlets, including those that regularly botched big political stories, such as the Russia-collusion hoax and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

At the 2021 U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge, GDI's founders explained the goal of the risk-rating technology: to disrupt the funding of so-called disinformation by steering away "ad dollars."

Danny Rogers, the American partner in the initiative, stressed in the team's presentation that "over a dozen ad-tech companies," covering "20 different media markets," used GDI's technology. That technology succeeded in "cutting the number of ad options" by over half, "redirecting millions of dollars away from disinformation peddlers toward quality journalism," Rogers boasted.

Significantly, after learning GEC had selected the Global Disinformation Index as one of the winners of the U.S.-Paris Challenge, Rogers' U.K. partner, Clare Melford, explained that the award, in addition to allowing GDI to increase its "language coverage capability," would also allow GDI to expand its risk assessments into video news and bolster the infrastructure "underpinning all of the GDI's activities ... so that the ad tech base can offer advertisers the chance to choose which their ads support."

In other words, our government paid for the infrastructure of GDI's ratings system that resulted in conservative news outlets being blacklisted - $100,000 worth of U.S. tax dollars in total, funneled by the GEC to the Global Disinformation Index through Park Advisors.

GEC also used Park Advisors to pay a second winner of the U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge, the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, which pitched its "Beam" technology that purports "to detect, track & measure online manipulation, disinformation, and harassment."

"Beam," according to the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, had already been "used by 300 civil society groups in the U.S. around the elections." But the tech challenge prize, the organization explained, would allow it to build "a new integration to study state-backed manipulation of Wikipedia."

The State Department confirmed it funded, through Disinfo Cloud, the Institute of Strategic Dialogue's research of Russian disinformation tactics against Wikipedia. But that research applied more to Americans than those in Europe or Asia, as the study analyzed "the English-language Wikipedia page for the Russo-Ukrainian war" - another apparent contravention of the foreign-focused purpose of the U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, like the GDI, also has an anti-conservative bias.

GEC Sponsors U.S.-Based Challenge

In addition to the international tech challenges, the GEC sponsored the "Countering COVID19 Disinformation Challenge," run by the Department of Defense's National Security Innovation Network. Winners of that challenge received $25,000 to pilot their technology on GEC's Testbed, "hosted by Disinfo Cloud."

One of the winners of this challenge was the irresponsible, reliability-ratings company NewsGuard. Like GDI, NewsGuard also champions leftist outlets that peddled the Russia-collusion hoax and wrongly framed the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation, while branding conservative outlets such as The Federalist as unreliable.

Park Advisors' Funding Is Shadowy

That GEC used Disinfo Cloud as a pass-through to award $100,000 to the Global Disinformation Index, an unspecified amount to the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, and $25,000 to NewsGuard and other winners of the Covid challenge makes no obvious sense - unless the State Department sought to avoid a public connection to the funding.

But even now knowing the GEC funded these censorship endeavors through Disinfo Cloud helps little because the State Department's funding of that platform is hazy.

While a State Department spokesman said GEC had awarded Park Advisors approximately $300,000 in 2018 to manage Disinfo Cloud, a search of government contracts and grants fails to show either Park Advisors or the related entity Park Capital Investment Group receiving any such award. The only documented payment to either entity appears in 2020 and shows a Covid loan of nearly $40,000 to Park Capital Investment Group.

Adding further mystery to the funding of Park Advisors - aka Park Capital Investment Group - is the inspector general's audit of GEC, which included a review of a nearly $3 million award to Park Capital Investment Group. But that award also does not appear at USASpending.gov. In fact, a search by award numbers also fails to show GEC's awards to Democracy Council of California or CNA Corporation.

The State Department ignored The Federalist's request for clarification of the funding of Park Advisors. The Federalist's efforts to speak with the founders and original managing partner of Park Advisors and Park Capital Investment Group also proved unsuccessful. Nemr - who has since founded the company Becera, which has already scored nearly a million dollars from the State Department as a sub-awardee - also did not respond to multiple inquiries.

GEC Let Contractors Run Censorship

While the lack of transparency related to the millions of federal grants awarded by GEC proves troubling, the larger concern is what GEC paid Park Advisors and presumably other contractors to do: fund and coordinate the censorship of Americans' speech and the blacklisting of our supposedly free press.

Further exacerbating the scandal are audits from the Office of Inspector General that reveal GEC lacked oversight of contractors and had insufficient internal controls "to ensure contractors did not perform inherently governmental functions."

Unfortunately, the State Department doesn't consider funding the development of censorship tools and marketing them to silence disfavored speakers any problem at all.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize-the law school's highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Shadowy Group Ran The Government's Censorship Scheme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The State Department's Global Engagement Center used a cutout corporation headed by a former intelligence officer to fund and promote the blacklisting of conservative media outlets and other censorship endeavors, research by The Federalist reveals.

# data[].attributes.body
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1622727876142419969.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://public.substack.com/p/why-renee-diresta-leads-the-censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since the 2016 elections, politicians, journalists, and many others have raised the alarm about "foreign election influence" and "disinformation," demanding greater "content moderation" by social media platforms. It is too easy, they argued, for foreign and malign actors to quickly "go viral" at low cost, leaving the good guys unable to correct bad information. We must become more "resilient" to disinformation.

It's now clear that all of that rhetoric was cover for a sweeping censorship effort by the federal government and government contractors.

Since December, a small but growing group of journalists, analysts, and researchers have documented the rise of a " Censorship Industrial Complex", a network of U.S. government agencies, and government-funded think tanks. Over the last six years, these entities have coordinated their efforts to both spread disinformation and to censor journalists, politicians, and ordinary Americans. They have done so directly and indirectly, including by playing good cop/bad cop with Twitter and Facebook. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have been involved in these censorship and disinformation campaigns in the U.S., Canada, and the UK.

DiResta, as much as any other public person in the Western world, has sounded the alarm, repeatedly and loudly, for stronger governmental and non-governmental coordination to get social media platforms to censor more information. "The Russian disinformation operations that affected the 2016 United States presidential election are by no means over," wrote DiResta in the New York Times in December 2018. "Russian interference through social media is a chronic, widespread, and identifiable condition that we must now aggressively manage."

While these suspicions nagged at me, I waved them away because DiResta is brilliant, was already working in high tech, and was succeeding in the new field of fighting foreign disinformation on social media platforms. Of all the people in various government agencies and government-funded think tanks making the case for U.S. government censorship, DiResta is, by far, the most persuasive. She received a degree in computer science in 2004, worked as a trader at Jane Street until 2011, was a high-tech VC until 2014, and founded a cloud-based shipping management software company that was acquired in 2021.

And, given the historical dominance of high tech by founders in their 20s and 30s, and the challenges of older people to understand social media, I convinced myself that a person with DiResta's limited experience battling disinformation online might leapfrog over the hundreds if not thousands of researchers, analysts, and intelligence experts who conduct research and combat foreign disinformation for the U.S. government and government-funded think tanks and academic institutions.

Unlike DiResta, Stamos didn't appear to believe that DiResta's time working for the CIA was too trivial, or too far in the past, to bother mentioning. When Stamos introduced DiResta to a Stanford audience, he described her as having "worked for," not merely "interned" with, the CIA.

Is DiResta telling the truth when she claims she's had "no affiliation since"? Perhaps. But one of the things I have heard from multiple people, including people within the intelligence community, is, "Nobody ever retires from the intelligence community." Such a claim is, no doubt, exaggerated. But there is truth to it. Moreover, one of the main characteristics of spycraft is the deployment of agents and assets not publicly affiliated with the CIA or other intelligence agencies.

Whatever DiResta's true history and continuing affiliations, she is without question one of the most, if not the most, influential leaders within the network of for-profit and nonprofit organizations and government agencies that comprise the Censorship-Industrial Complex. As research director of Stanford Internet Observatory, DiResta was the key leader and spokesperson of both the 2021 "Virality Project," against covid vaccine "misinformation" and the 2020 "Election Integrity Project."

The question now is why. If we hope to defund and dismantle the Censorship Industrial Complex, we must understand what makes its leaders tick, why they rose to the top, and how they can be defeated. Who is Renee DiResta, and why is she, and not somebody else, the public-facing leader of the censorship industry and a trusted advisor to Democrats in Congress? Why is she doing it? And what will it take to defund the Stanford Internet Observatory, dismantle the censorship industry, and disempower DiResta?

To answer those questions, we first need to understand how DiResta got away with and was even rewarded for participating in one of the most outrageous and likely illegal, election disinformation campaigns in recent history.

In 2017, the billionaire founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, donated $750,000 to American Engagement Technologies (AET), an election campaigns consultancy founded by a former Obama administration official. Of that money, $100,000 went to another political consulting firm, "New Knowledge," to run a social media disinformation operation to help Alabama Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Doug Jones defeat Republican Roy Moore in a December special election.

New Knowledge ran something called "Project Birmingham," which created fake Russian Twitter social media accounts that followed Moore, resulting in news stories that the Kremlin was backing Moore in the race. A 12-page New Knowledge memo dated Dec. 15, 2017 described the operation. "We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet," the report says.

DiResta was intimately involved with both of the key organizations overseeing the Birmingham disinformation effort. She told the Washington Post that she helped AET get financial backing from Hoffman and took a seat on the board of AET. Then, in January 2018, two weeks after the New Knowledge memo, DiResta became the organization's Research Director.

The memo claimed that the work of New Knowledge had shifted enough votes for Jones to win the election, which had been decided by fewer than 22,000 voters. How? Through the use of disinformation to "radicalize Democrats, suppress unpersuadable Republicans ('hard Rs') and faction moderate Republicans by advocating for write-in candidates," said the memo.

New Knowledge also "planted the idea that a Russian botnet amplified the Moore campaign on social media. We then tied that botnet to the Moore campaign digital director, making it appear that he had purchased the accounts." Wrote the Washington Post, "During the campaign, journalists wrote stories about Twitter accounts that appeared to be Russian followers of Moore."

But there is no evidence that the Russians influenced the 2016 campaign, much less that they won it for Trump. Conservative voters did not consume much social media compared to news media in 2016. While 40 percent of Trump voters said, Fox was their primary news source, only 7 percent said Facebook.

"People promoting the idea that Russia swung the election will often cite that Russian Facebook posts reached about 126 million Americans," said a team of researchers who debunked DiResta's disinformation. "But that refers to anyone whose news feed ever included such a piece of content, regardless of whether they saw it, or whether it may have been drowned out in their minds by hundreds of other posts." Moreover, 56% of the Russian troll farm's pages appeared the election while 25% were seen by no one.

DiResta has constantly sought to emphasize, creepily, that "fighting disinformation" is not a free speech issue but rather a national security one. In her 2018 Senate Testimony, DiResta said fighting disinformation "is not about arbitrating truth, nor is it a question of free speech." Rather, she claimed, it is "a cybersecurity issue, it is an ongoing national security issue, and it must be addressed through a collaboration between governments responsible for the safety of their citizens and private industry responsible for the integrity of their products and platforms" [my emphasis].

"One of the things that the platforms are looking at now is this notion of healthy discourse," DiResta told Kara Swisher in an interview published at Vox. "What are the metrics for healthy discourse?... I know some of the [liberal philanthropic] foundations are also working on thinking about how do we quantify this..."

DiResta thinks this question isn't just important for fighting "foreign disinformation." Rather, what content "we" should "let" remain online is a question she believes the U.S. government must decide for every major social and political issue in society since her overarching framework is the legitimacy of governing institutions.

But if DiResta and her colleagues at CISA violate the First Amendment, why mention it? Why not simply avoid mention of it altogether? Part of the reason is likely to assuage concerns among government officials, including elected ones, who approved the funding for the Censorship Industrial Complex in the first place.

Why, in the end, is it Renee DiResta, and not somebody else, the leader of the Censorship Industrial Complex? A big part of the reason is because she is the intellectual architect, and most articulate public advocate, of government funding of, and cooperation with, non-governmental actors, such as Stanford Internet Observatory, to increase social media censorship of disfavored views and disfavored users.

But there is another, deeper reason. Like other American elites, DiResta believes that it is the role of people like her to control what information the public is allowed to consume, lest they elect a populist ogre like Donald Trump, decide not to get vaccinated, or don't accept whatever happens to be mainstream liberal opinion on everything from climate change to transgenderism to the business dealings of the presidents family.

DiResta claims, "...Shellenberger continues to mislead. He cited fabricated statistics and claims from a crank..."

DiResta made other false claims. She said I told Rogan that she and SIO "had censored Shellenberger, his book, and Rogan himself." That is simply ridiculous. I said no such thing. DiResta said I had "personal grievances" and had been "speculating about whether I'm a good mom." Also false. Here's what I actually said: "I agree with her [Renee] on some things. I'm sure she's a fine person in her personal life. She's probably a good mother," to which Joe said, "You're trying to be nice," which was true. Anyone who listens to the exchange can tell I was making clear that my criticism of DiResta was not personal.

Would you be surprised to learn that DiResta is a master of misleading people? In her response to me, she appears to be denouncing censorship and advocating more free speech. Consider this sentence: "I've long advocated against content and account takedowns in favor of the context - the counter-speech - of a label in the majority of relevant situations."

While "labeling content" sounds harmless, it has repeatedly been used as a way to spread the kind of disinformation that DiResta claims to be fighting, such as against legitimate about covid vaccines, covid's origins, The New York Post's accurate Hunter Biden laptop story, and climate change.

While we must defund and dismantle the Censorship Industrial Complex, the greatest change must happen within ourselves. We must be suspicious of those who raise the alarm about "foreign election influence" and "disinformation" and demand greater "content moderation" by social media platforms. As such, we should take a page from our would-be censors and make ourselves more resilient to their disinformation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Renee DiResta Leads The Censorship Industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the 2016 elections, politicians, journalists, and many others have raised the alarm about "foreign election influence" and "disinformation," demanding greater "content moderation" by social media platforms. It is too easy, they argued, for foreign and malign actors to quickly "go viral" at low cost, leaving the good guys unable to correct bad information.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/masks-cause-headaches-itching-and-lower-oxygen-intake-study_5181866.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A systematic review of 2,168 studies that looked into the adverse effects of wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic has found that the practice led to negative health consequences, including itching, headaches, and restriction of oxygen.

"We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second," states the review, published in the "Frontiers in Public Health" on April 5. A meta-analysis of multiple studies found that headache was the "most frequent symptom" among mask wearers, with a prevalence of 62 percent for general mask use and up to 70 percent when using N95 masks. Shortness of breath was observed at 33 percent for general mask use and 37 percent among N95 users.

While 17 percent of surgical mask wearers experienced itching, this number was at 51 percent among users of N95. Acne prevalence among mask users was at 38 percent and skin irritation was at 36 percent. Dizziness was found to be prevalent among 5 percent of subjects.

"Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation," the review states. "Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups."

The restriction of oxygen uptake and hindrance in carbon-di-oxide release was identified as more significant among users of N95 masks. Continuous rebreathing of carbon dioxide results in the "right-shift of hemoglobin-O2 saturation curve."

"Since O2 and CO2 homeostasis influences diverse down-stream metabolic processes, corresponding changes toward clinically concerning directions may lead to unfavorable consequences such as transient hypoxemia and hypercarbia, increased breath humidity, and body temperature along with compromised physiological compensations," the review states.

The review also said that several mask-related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as symptoms of long COVID. "In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health," it states, referring to the World Health Organization.

It suggested that the side effects of face masks be assessed based on risk-benefit analysis after taking into consideration their effectiveness against viral transmissions. If "strong empirical evidence" showing the effectiveness of masks is absent, the study recommended that wearing masks should not be mandated, "let alone enforced by law."

Sudden Mask Policy Change, Suppressing Studies

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, existing data on respiratory viruses had shown that there was no basis for wearing masks to prevent their spread. "All the studies done in the world until 2020 showed that there is no justification for this," Yoav Yehezkelli, a specialist in internal medicine and a lieutenant colonel in the Israel Defense Forces, said in an interview with The Epoch Times in January.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the WHO issued guidelines that there was no need for wearing masks in the general public, he pointed out.

But in 2020 following the COVID-19 outbreak, recommendations on mask-wearing around the world suddenly changed "without having any new professional support to confirm that it does indeed have effectiveness against respiratory infection."

A December letter that he co-wrote and sent to the Israel Medical Association Journal pointed to multiple studies suggesting that wearing masks can end up causing harm.

Potential negative effects include headaches, shortness of breath, a dip in blood oxygen levels, a rise in carbon dioxide levels, concentration difficulties, and bacterial contamination. The accumulation of CO2 can end up causing tiredness, blurriness, and sleepiness, he noted.

There have also been attempts to subdue studies that expose the ineffectiveness of masks. A 2023 study published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews stated that wearing masks made "little or no difference" when it came to the transmission of COVID-19.

A columnist at The New York Times published an opinion piece titled "Here's Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work" and reached out to Cochrane for its view. The editor-in-chief at Cochrane then issued a statement saying that it's an "inaccurate and misleading interpretation" to say the study shows that masks do not work, adding that the publication was "engaging" with the authors on updating the article's abstract.

However, the authors refused to do so, with the lead author insisting that "there is just no evidence that [masks] make any difference ... full stop."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Masks Cause Headaches, Itching, and Lower Oxygen Intake: Study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A systematic review of 2,168 studies that looked into the adverse effects of wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic has found that the practice led to negative health consequences, including itching, headaches, and restriction of oxygen.

# data[].attributes.body
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/retrospective-censorship-the-new

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Those who wish to silence and cancel those who raise concerns about the 'official covid narrative' (especially those questioning the 'safe and effective' vaccines) are resorting to new, more inventive ways, to attack us. Not content to simply ensure that dissenting research papers on covid data never get published, they are now trying to delegitimise published non-covid papers produced by covid dissenters.

A prominent and disturbing example of this is the retrospective attack on Paul Marik and his 2017 paper on Vitamin C and sepsis - an attack clearly chosen to delegitimise Marik simply because he has been a prominent advocate for early treatment protocols for covid. Fortunately, that attack seems to have finally failed. But this is not going to stop the censors who are determined to silence any dissenters.

In the last few months, I have received multiple emails from journals where I had previously published non-covid papers asking me to respond to complaints that I failed to declare conflicts of interest. Invariably these complaints have said that I did not inform readers that I was a member of the HART group or PANDATA.

For example, the complaint, below, is about an article I co-authored, and is one of many similar reports to journals that I have been asked to respond to. the frustrating thing is that rather than ignore this nonsense journals require a formal response, resulting in an exhausting time-suck. And this is the reason why the complainants do it - to grind you down:

The article (which I strongly recommend of course!) was published in August 2022 and has nothing to do with covid or anything related to the activities of HART or PANDATA. Moreover, while I've spoken at PANDA meetings (and certainly admire their work), I am not a 'member'. Indeed, whereas the link provided to HART is to the members list which I am on, the link to PANDATA in the complaint is not to any PANDATA members list but rather to a hysterical hit piece about PANDATA.

If dissenters are now required to declare affiliations to any group to which we belong or whose objectives we approve of, does this mean that I have to declare on each authored paper that I am a Spurs season ticket holder? Or that in my youth I attended meetings of the International Socialists? What about my Amazon prime membership? Or the fact that I own the entire X-Files series box-set? Or that I have seen Les Misérables 53 times in the theatre?

The fact is that, while I've published over 300 peer-reviewed papers, none of the many dozens I've written about covid data after summer 2020 have even got to the serious review stage when submitted to any journal. For bogus reasons like this:

And, as we have reported before, even the preprint servers refuse to host our papers on covid analysis:

As in the case of our submission to The Lancet nobody ever challenges the accuracy of our work; it is sufficient for them to know 'who' is writing it in order to know it must be banned. And, since people like the Government approved spokesperson for jabbing pregnant women tell everybody that I am a 'rabid misinformation merchant', that seems to be sufficient 'evidence' to reject our work.

In the very rare cases where papers that seriously challenge the official covid narrative have been accepted or published in a peer reviewed journal, the organised attacks begin instantly. Some of the best-known examples include:

The first published paper highlighting myocarditis risks post-vaccination by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough was published online in Oct 2021 but then almost immediately (and permanently) withdrawn by the publishers without any explanation provided to the authors.

The paper by Hui Jiang and Ya-Fang Mei which proved that the SARS Cov-2 spike protein stops DNA repair (i.e., induces cancer risk) in lymphocytes. It was only after Jiang admitted that, because the vaccine spike was the same as the virus spike, the vaccine had a real risk of causing cancer-inducing changes in DNA that the demands to retract the paper began - as explained here with details of the scandalous retraction politics here.

The paper by Mark Skidmore which estimated over 200,000 people killed by the vaccines has now been retracted by the journal. The ' concerns' leading to the retraction were either easily fixed or bogus, including a claim that there was insufficient ethical approval for the survey on which it was based and failure to declare the views of the person who funded the survey (Catherine Austin-Fitts). Steve Kirsch has announced he is going to mount a legal challenge to this retraction.

For many the covid era has destroyed the trust in many if not all institutions - the government, the pharma industry, the social media giants, and the mainstream media generally. In saner times we would have at least expected academia to rise above the lies and corruption and, especially, the censorship. Yet, academia has spearheaded the censorship of dissenting voices and, by censoring research based on who wrote it or who they are associated with, rather than on its quality and accuracy, any respect for the notion of 'peer review' has been destroyed and may never recover.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retrospective censorship: the new punishment for covid dissidents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those who wish to silence and cancel those who raise concerns about the 'official covid narrative' (especially those questioning the 'safe and effective' vaccines) are resorting to new, more inventive ways, to attack us. Not content to simply ensure that dissenting research papers on covid data never get published, they are now trying to delegitimise published non-covid papers produced by covid dissenters.

# data[].attributes.body
https://dailyclout.io/meet-the-misinformation-busters-how-they-speak-who-funds-them-what-they-think-of-you/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Meet the "Misinformation Busters": How They Speak, Who Funds Them & What They Think of You

A monthly public Zoom webinar held by an initiative called "Building Trust" is a window into the minds and psyche of the people who are fully entrenched in the Medical/Pharma establishment, and the shocking things they'll say in order to push a well-funded agenda.
Part I
Back in January, the DailyClout reported on an organization called the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation. The ABIM Foundation created an initiative called Building Trust which aims to build trust in healthcare. The official mission statement of Building Trust, as stated on its website is as follows:

"Building Trust is an ABIM Foundation initiative that aims to elevate the importance of trust as an essential organizing principle to guide operations and improvements in health care. We will identify and promote best practices in building trust by collaborating with organizations across various health care sectors."

While the above statement may sound innocuous and even noble, a quick look at the Building Trust website reveals that the ABIM Foundation holds regular Building Trust Zoom webinars to discuss how to approach vaccine hesitancy, and counter "medical misinformation" online. Past webinars include topics such as "Countering Medical Misinformation through Social Media", "Countering Medical Misinformation", "Building Trust through Community Partnerships" and more.

In last month's webinar, the self-proclaimed "misinformation busters" made statements about vaccine injuries that were shockingly flippant. That article with video clips included can be found here.
Part II
Part II of this series takes a look behind the curtain at how pharma-funded online activists via non-profit organizations are strategizing to combat the sheer flood of, in their terms, "misinformation" (i.e., real-world observations and documented evidence) that is threatening to bring down the entire house of cards surrounding the COVID mRNA vaccine narrative.

There are numerous non-profit organizations that continue to receive funding from major pharma-adjacent entities such as The Rockefeller Foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

These small non-profits funded by the entities named above apparently exist solely to control the public narrative surrounding COVID mRNA vaccines.

The organizations actively attempt to censor people online who speak negatively about the mRNA vaccines.

The CDC cooperates directly with a number of these organizations.

Members of these organizations openly strategize on video. Part of their strategy is to completely divert conversations away from vaccine injuries and medical freedom.

Medical Freedom warriors are fighting an information war because they've had propaganda shoved down their throats and into their bodies, and they've had enough. The Establishment's medical system is fighting an information war because it NEEDS everyone to believe its lies. It's desperate for everyone to believe its lies.

Luckily, the establishment is really bad at it, as can be seen in maximum-cringe social media posts with zero engagement:

Unluckily, the pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies had a major head start. And billions of dollars, of course.

"Misinformation Is Here to Stay"

"Misinformation is here to stay" was the overall message of a public Zoom meeting held by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation. The ABIM Foundation is a subsidiary of the American Board of Internal Medicine and has a branch called " Building Trust " whose sole purpose appears to be fighting "misinformation". The organization holds a public monthly webinar, and while the people who run it appear to want to attract viewers, they generally get less than 100 attendees and a similar amount of views on the YouTube video they post afterward on their site.

The February session of Building Trust's webinar was run by Daniel Wolfson, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of The ABIM Foundation, along with two guest panelists:

The organizations in which both guests are heavily involved are funded by entities whose purpose is to combat vaccine hesitancy, "misinformation" and "disinformation".

The Big Business of "Combating Misinformation"

"Misinformation" is a word that has been in existence since the 1580s, yet has had very little practical usage until extremely recently. A quick look at Google trends shows the rise in usage of the word.

In 2018, Dictionary.com designated the word "misinformation" as its Word of the Year. Dictionary.com defines misinformation as "false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead".

The Washington Post published an article written by education and foreign affairs reporter Valerie Strauss about misinformation in 2018 after the word won Word of the Year. Ms. Strauss laments the spread of "misinformation" across social media platforms, praises tech companies that were censoring "misinformation spreaders", and calls for even more top-down control over public conversations online.

Who Decides?

The question of the year, decade, and century is Who Decides? Who decides what qualifies as "misinformation"?

In the current environment, there are mass amounts of people who occupy the same physical space, yet live in completely alternate emotional realities that are based on opposing foundational facts. Each group has a set of experts it trusts to give over accurate information, and each group is 100% convinced that the other side is crazy, and cannot understand how the other side doesn't see what it sees.

The two sides are not equal. Those who occupy a reality in which the mRNA boosters are saviors have been actively targeted by a relentless propaganda campaign backed by some of the world's richest and most powerful entities.

Those who occupy a reality in which all government COVID measures including mRNA vaccines have left pain, disaster, and death in its wake live in that reality either because they were already skeptical of big government and giant corporations or because unfortunately, the painful reality of the COVID response hit them in the face on a personal level.

The orchestrators of the pro-vaccine, pro-mask, pro-mandate propaganda campaign appear to understand that the upper hand they enjoyed during the early days of COVID in the public sphere no longer exists. As an entity, the Medical/Pharma Establishment is desperately attempting to keep the public's attention on COVID risks and boosters, while diverting attention away from the very real flood of vaccine injuries, all while vaccine uptake plummets to the floor.

The methods the Establishment is using for diversion include projection, gaslighting, censorship, manipulating language, and lying. The organizations mentioned in the Zoom Webinar are funded arms of the Medical/Pharma Establishment and engage in the following behaviors, as can be seen by watching members of the organizations strategize on video:

Projection: Projection is when someone accuses his opponent of doing something for which he himself is actually guilty. The Medical/Pharma Establishment created hype and negativity around the word "misinformation". It then repeatedly accused an entire sector of the professional public that opposed the official COVID response of spreading false information, while refusing to engage or debate directly to defend its own false claims on vaccine safety and more.

Gaslighting: The Medical Establishment directly and openly gaslights vaccine-injured victims by downplaying or ignoring their stories, claiming they don't exist, or claiming that the injuries are emotional and exist only in their heads.

Censorship: The Medical Establishment openly cooperated with the White House and the CDC to actively remove professionals who disagreed with official COVID policy from the online sphere.

Manipulating Language: The Medical Establishment uses specific buzzwords as weapons to deflect from having to engage in conversation. "Misinformation", "Anti-vax", "Conspiracy Theorist" and more are all tossed directly at those who disagree with the official narrative, and the Establishment itself has painted people with that label as unworthy of engagement.

Lying: The Medical Establishment is still trying to claim that one who gets a vaccine will save his grandmother, as well as that the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective.
What follows is a look at numerous organizations that were mentioned in the February session of the "Building Trust" Webinar:
Critica Science, an organization with which Dr. Scales is involved, has a stated mission. Its mission is to research how people get scientific information, and to combat "mis and disinformation", particularly surrounding the topics of the safety of drinking water from the municipal water supply in the US, and the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines. In a stunning display of strategic genius, the game plan of Critica's team, as written on Critica's site, is to "Search the Internet for comments people posted about drinking water and vaccines on public websites and social media platforms. Then we make comments and enter the conversation".

Such initiatives are drawing grants worth millions of dollars.

In the "About" section of Critica's website, it claims there are no conflicts of interest, and the organization does not take any money from entities that would present a conflict of interest to its mission of combating misinformation. It states that Critica's funding comes from "private donors with no such connections and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation".
Critica Science
Actually, it only states that in a hidden copy of the About Critica page. On the public About page on Critica's site, no such disclaimer is made and no donors are mentioned.

An article was published in The Atlantic in 2016 titled "Why Do People Fall For Charismatic Leaders", by Olga Khazan. In the article, Jack Gorman, MD and CEO of Critica, is quoted discussing his new venture called "Critica" which will explore methods of convincing the American public on specific topics in a manner that would shift behaviors.
The Origins of Critica
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the only named donor in the hidden copy of the "About Critica" page as shown above. The RWJ Foundation's website discusses combatting vaccine hesitancy and misinformation, as well as issues surrounding "health equity".

The RWJ Foundation funds multiple other projects similar to Critica, such as The Mercury Project, launched by the Social Science Research Council, which also receives major funding from The Rockefeller Foundation.

From the Rockefeller Foundation website:
Can the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation truly be considered a neutral donor with no conflict of interest?
The Social Science Research Council, with funding from The Rockefeller Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Craig Newmark Philanthropies, will quantify the costs and harms of mis- and disinformation, and identify new tools to reduce its impact.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The Mercury Project seems to be one of the places that tie this all together, with the entities that fund the Mercury Project also funding other similar ventures. The Mercury Project's 2023 Proposal document on its website discusses:

Increase vaccination demand

Establish "healthier information environments"

The Rockefeller Foundation

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (which also funds Critica Science, where Dr. David Scales works)

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

The World Health Organization

The US Surgeon General

It ends up looking a little something like this:
Goals: $25 Million Partially Funded By:
Project Vectr was mentioned in the Building Trust Webinar by Daniel Wolfson of the ABIM Foundation as being a CDC-involved organization that, too, attempts to combat "misinformation". Project Vectr boasts on its website that it "provides the power to understand and combat the transmission of vaccine misinformation, to improve the public's health".

In the ABIM Foundation Zoom Webinar, guest panelist Dr. Hussain Lalani described a dashboard created by Project Vectr for the express purpose of limiting misinformation.
Inspired By:

"These organizations used a couple of different tools in order to collate and organize all of this circulating misinformation on social media. And they produced reports and dashboard on a weekly and sometimes more frequent basis that helped us to identify the major themes that were circulating"

The website is obscure, and access to the "misinformation data trackers" dashboard is only granted to users after an approval process. However, in a public short promo video on its site, the background appears to be an image of the dashboard itself, and names such as The Children's Health Defense and Del Bigtree can be seen as flagged. Oddly, the date in the corner is marked as October 2019.

As can be clearly seen in this video clip, the dashboard collected specific posts, topics, and personalities to highlight as "misinformation spreaders" which Project Vectr then presumably shares with its fellow Misinformation-Busters.

As appears on the bottom of the Project Vectr website, it is a partner of UNICEF. It is a collaboration between The Public Good Projects and The New York State Health Foundation.
Zoom Webinar Clip 1: Project Vectr
The Public Good Projects is yet another non-profit organization dedicated to public health equity and messaging, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, Google, UNICEF, and the Yale Institute of Global Health.

Dr. Hussein Lalani co-founded "#ThisisOurShot for a COVID-Free World". #ThisIsOurShot is another organization whose goal is to combat vaccine misinformation and "build trust". It's supported by a long list of US-based medical institutions:

Mr. Lalani is also involved with an organization called " Shots Heard Round the World ". The organization defines itself as "a rapid-response digital cavalry dedicated to protecting the online safety of healthcare providers and practices."
Who is Project Vectr?
Unsurprisingly, Shots Heard Round the World is also funded by The Public Good Projects.

Updated to include the origins for Project Vectr and Shots Heard Round the World, the "Misinformation-Busters flow chart" looks something like this:

The New York State Health Foundation awarded a $75,000 grant to The Public Good Projects for the purpose of supporting Project Vectr to combat vaccine misinformation. It must be noted that this was awarded in November 2020, before a single COVID mRNA shot was administered.

Although there is no mention of a connection between Project Vectr and the CDC anywhere on either website, Mr. Daniel Wolfson of the ABIM Foundation mentioned that Project Vectr is affiliated with the CDC during the Zoom webinar.
#ThisIsOurShot
The Virality Project was also mentioned by journalist Matt Taibbi during the Twitter Hearings on March 9, 2023, as being directly connected to the government, and actively squashing true stories of vaccine injuries.

https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1633888578072616963
Who You Gonna Call?... The Misinformation Busters!
The above organizations and the foundations that fund them are spending millions of dollars to prod humanity towards enthusiastically accepting repeated vaccinations. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation have been inserting themselves into public health agencies for decades and have held solid control over the conversation and methods surrounding public health measures.

A journalist named Anne Emmanuel-Birn published a paper in the International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations back in 1996 titled "Public health or public menace? The Rockefeller Foundation and public health in Mexico, 1920-1950″. The article details how The Rockefeller Foundation gained a strong foothold in the Mexican Government using public health initiatives.

One hundred years later, the means for control over public health have significantly expanded due to technology and digital identities. At the same time, the means for communication among the people have expanded far beyond a level the medical establishment can control. We as a society appear to be at a place where giant medical corporations and public health agencies have a vaccine to get to everyone, rivers of money and a major head start in the Information War, waging a propaganda campaign the likes of which the world had never seen before.

New Media

The new media landscape has exploded since COVID hit. Alternative platforms, underground social media groups, and new video platforms facilitated a way for the Covid Dissidents to communicate after being exiled from the mainstream conversation. The medical establishment appears to be at a loss for how to respond. Pharma-adjacent foundations are throwing huge sums of money that trickle down through organizations and land up in Zoom webinars of fully-entrenched members of the medical establishment who receive funding to gaslight the public and create business proposals that discuss commenting on social media threads. The organizations that are set up to combat misinformation are in major defense mode, as they scramble to gain their footing within a media landscape they don't even begin to understand.

The Webinar

All of the above is the background and context for the environment within which these organizations operate. The ABIM Foundation Zoom Webinar provides a glimpse into the psyche of the people who are willing to play the pharma game, and the tactics they use to attempt to gain their footing online.
Zoom Webinar Clip 2: Project Vectr, The Virality Project, + CDC
Dr. David Scales discussed how they use language, how they appoint representatives for certain communities, and how they "reframe" the conversation surrounding vaccines.

"One example of that is that we sometimes 'reframe' the way people talk about things. For example, if someone says like, 'I'm not going to get the vaccine because I'm so sick of all these vaccine mandates and no one can tell me what to do with my body', one of the things that we do is try to reframe that and say 'absolutely, and it's really important that you're thinking about this in this way, because the vaccines really affect all of us'.
And we try to affirm that self-efficacy, that we are kind of able to make our own decisions about our health, but then we reframe a little bit, and say something like 'I can understand your concerns about kind of, freedom, or vaccine side effects, or whatever '."

This video notes the eerie similarities in Dr. Scales' tone of voice when he discusses vaccine injuries to that of Dr Vinny Arora, Dean for Medical Education at University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine during the previous month's Building Trust Webinar:

The Virality Project
Dr. Hussain Lalani spent a few minutes discussing "social media interventions", which is his term for making pro-vaccine comments online. He discussed the need to operate within the framework and the algorithm of each social media company, and noted that many things that go viral are things that are "not true".

"When you try to do a social media intervention that is based upon the structural design of the platform. And you're trying to sort of utilize what you know about the algorithms, what goes viral, to sort of to you know, utilize them to your benefit. And oftentimes the sort of elements of what makes something go viral are utilized very well and correlated well with things that aren't necessarily true. But at the end of the day, there's only so much you can do without having structural policy reforms in a space that's actually a private platform. Even though it feels like the real world, and public discourse, it's not really... There's going to be a lot of reckoning coming soon in the next couple months, in the next year or so, when it comes to regulating these companies"

Efforts to Control the Narrative
He called for a public reckoning in order to TIGHTEN social media controls over "misinformation", and directs people to Shots Heard Round the World if they need a rapid response to an online anti-vaccine "attack by real or fake people".

During the Zoom Webinar, Dr. Lalani discussed how important it is to build trust, and how important it is to cultivate trust in online communities as well as in the real world. During this segment, there was a live chat comment from someone in the audience (viewable to everyone in the webinar) that appeared to appeal to the panelists' sense of authority, while dropping in a major vaccine red flag as quoted by the Florida attorney general. The comment read as follows:

"Thank you for your work. How can we respond to people who ask about, for example, that the Florida Surgeon General came out today with a report that life-threatening events were elevated by over 4000% since the COVID vaccine came out? How do we respond when this information comes from a public health official?"

If you pay close attention after that comment pops up in the video, you can see a lot of shifty eyes and nervous looks. The panel ignored the comment on the live stream, but Dr. David Scales responded to the commenter in the chat. His comment said:

"I like to draw from Lisa Harris's "danger talk" framework when communicating around contentious issues: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953617302964″

The article Dr. Scales referred to as a response to the question about the Florida VAERS data was published in 2017 in a journal called Science Direct. The article is called "Dangertalk: Voices of Abortion Providers" and it discusses the phenomenon of self-censorship among abortion providers, and lists appropriate narratives to use when discussing abortion that will "evoke sympathy". The article states that one reason abortion providers don't discuss the details of their work is to protect the pro-choice movement by not giving the pro-life crowd any fodder.

A parallel between the topics of discussing abortion details and discussing vaccine injuries can clearly be drawn from Dr. Scales recommendation for this article. In other words, just like they don't discuss details of abortion because it will harm the pro-choice movement, they also don't discuss vaccine injuries, because it's harmful to the pro-vaccine movement. Instead, they use language that will "evoke sympathy", like protecting grandmothers.
Clip 3: The Tactics

Watch this clip here, and look out for the comment and the reaction.

In this clip, Dr. Scales discussed the shaky landscape of information. He said:
Clip 4: Social Media Interventions

"We're building the ship as we're flying it. And so, trying to wait the few years it might take to do randomized control trials is just not the environment we're in. So we've taken the approach that we really need to just start working in this space and then try to do the best evaluation that we can so we can iterate and try to improve on the intervention that we're doing".

Mr. Wolfson then asks if there's been an increase in misinformation since the Elon Twitter Takeover, although he was careful not to specify Twitter by name.

"Given the policies of unspecified social media heads have you been seeing an increase in misinformation in recent days?"

Dr. Scales responded yes and didn't hesitate to name Twitter and Facebook.
Clip 5: Building Trust, and an Interesting Public Comment

"It depends on the platform, but the short answer is yes. In the sense that Twitter especially has changed some of its parameters and there's a lot more not so much misinformation, but I would say the tenor of the conversation has changed and is much more combative. Facebook is also changing some of its content moderation. There were some content moderation policies that were in place during the pandemic, and it seems like social media companies are very interested in taking those down, which in my opinion would be premature."

Dr. Lalani called it a "cesspool out there", with an increase in "hate speech and discrimination and false information flying around".

Dr. Scales talked about "Infodemics", a term coined in 2003 by David J Rothkopf in The Washington Post. He said that similar to epidemics, infodemics are when information seeds through the population through social media. Dr. Scales published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "The Covid-19 Infodemic - Applying the Epidemiologic Model to Counter Misinformation". The article was co-written with Mr. Jack Gorman, CEO of Critica Science.

The article states:

"The Annenberg Public Policy Center's tracking of social and legacy media has found that millions of people have been exposed to deceptive material alleging that SARS-CoV-2 is a hoax or that experts are exaggerating its severity and the extent of its spread, that masks are ineffective or increase infection risk, or that Covid-19 vaccines cause the disease, alter the recipient's DNA, or include tracking devices. Believing such claims is associated with a lower likelihood of engaging in preventive behavior and a lower willingness to be vaccinated.

Dr. Scales and Dr. Lalani both strongly advocated for better communications classes in medical school, to teach future doctors how to communicate with their patients and handle "misinformation".

There was a lot to unpack in that meeting. The full video is on the Building Trust website, along with past webinars.

The people on the front lines of the mRNA vaccine propaganda machine are wrapped in a web of conflicts of interest, and funding from the industry that's focused on jabbing every arm. Beware of the REAL misinformation spreaders.

After diving into this subject for the past few weeks, it's clear that we are, indeed, suffering through an "infodemic". The infodemic is perpetrated by a handful of powerful global corporate entities all of whom have a narrative and a product that they are hell-bent on selling to the global population, at any cost.

The flippant way in which vaccine injuries and medical freedom are discussed by the Misinformation Busters is eery.

This meeting was held in Feb 2023, and Dr. Scales is STILL trying to sell the idea that one who gets the vaccine can save his grandmother.

The Misinformation Busters are really bad at their jobs. The practice of medicine self-selects for obedience, and with that obedience often comes a rigid and practical way of thinking. The team of people trying to capture the attention and sway the opinions of the masses is hopelessly boring and doesn't understand current social media culture or the landscape of New Media.

Despite many millions of dollars pointed toward the effort to keep control over the narrative, the Misinformation Busters are clearly losing. They're lying about vaccine injuries, dismissive of people's bodily autonomy, and by peddling years of lies they've destroyed their own credibility.

Clip 6: "We're Building the Ship as We're Flying It" Clip 7: Infodemics and Infodemiologists My Notes: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Don't get fooled by the Infodemic perpetrated by the Misinformation Busters. Get Your Copy of the Pfizer Reports PDF eBook. Please support DailyClout. Become a DailyClout Member.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the "Misinformation Busters": How They Speak, Who Funds Them & What They Think of You

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A monthly public Zoom webinar held by an initiative called "Building Trust" is a window into the minds and psyche of the people who are fully entrenched in the Medical/Pharma establishment, and the shocking things they'll say in order to push a well-funded agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cdc-partners-with-social-and-behavior-change-initiative-to-silence-vaccine-hesitancy_5175172.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Stanford-educated ear, nose, and throat doctor, isn't afraid to voice her beliefs. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, she repeatedly used her platform on Twitter and TikTok to question the vaccines, promote ivermectin as a treatment, and call out pharmacists for refusing to dispense it.

But her efforts resulted in significant backlash. On Nov. 7, 2021, Dr. Danielle Jones, an OBGYN who posts under the handle @MamaDoctorJones on YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter-and has millions of followers-put out a video accusing Bowden of "grifting," rejecting science, and profiting from those who questioned the vaccine.

The video received thousands of comments, including from Team Halo members Dr. Zachary Rubin, a pediatrician, and Christina Kim, an oncology nurse practitioner. Team Halo is a social media influencer campaign formed as part of the United Nations Verified initiative and the Vaccine Confidence Project to increase vaccine uptake.

"That doc is problematic," Rubin wrote. Kim followed with, "Wow. That 'doctor' should have her license revoked."

On Nov. 12, 2021, five days after the video, Bowden received a text message from the Houston Chronicle that read: "Hi Dr. Bowden, I'm told you've been suspended from Houston Methodist pending further investigation because of your comments on social media. I plan to report that this afternoon but wanted to give you an opportunity to comment." Stunned, Bowden responded that the text was the first she had heard of the suspension.

The suspension turned out to be the tip of the iceberg. Over the following months, Bowden's life was thrown into chaos as multiple social media influencers targeted her. However, the most dogged was a pharmacist named Savannah, who posts under the handle @rxOrcist.

"Savannah has over a million followers. She made a video about me because I have been calling out, online, pharmacists that were refusing to dispense ivermectin," Bowden told The Epoch Times. "The majority of them happen to be Asian. So she, therefore, concluded that I was racist against Asians and called me a 'xenophobic, racist [expletive],' among other things.

"Because she has so many followers, when she makes a video about you, you get an army of people coming after you. A lot of fake people [writing] reviews. That's one of the biggest things. You can't get them removed. I've tried to get them removed, and I can prove that they're not my patients."

Bowden added that she'd been kicked off of TikTok, is on probation on YouTube, had complaints filed against her, and has even been threatened at her office, necessitating that she call security.

In the video, Savannah showed that she reported Bowden to the Texas Medical Board. The board declined to investigate her specific complaints. Still, they are pursuing two other complaints: one filed by Houston Methodist claiming a violation of patient care and one filed by Texas Health Huguley Hospital for prescribing ivermectin.

In the comments of Savannah's video, Tyler Kuhk, a nurse and previous Team Halo member, according to web archives, and who posts under @thatsassynp, wrote, "How these loons still have licenses is beyond me. Why is an ENT even treating COVID?"

Savannah is part of a group called Shots Heard, which calls itself a "rapid-response digital cavalry dedicated to protecting the online safety of health care providers and practices." Kuhk is also a member. Savannah joined Shots Heard on Aug. 6, 2020, and Kuhk joined on Feb. 13, 2021.

According to its website, Shots Heard is an initiative under The Public Good Projects (PGP), a "public health nonprofit specializing in large-scale media monitoring programs, social and behavior change interventions, and cross-sector initiatives."

Another of PGP's initiatives is the Public Health Communications Collaborative ( PHCC), which sits within the CDC Foundation-a nonprofit arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established by Congress.

The goal of the communications collaborative, according to PGP, is to decrease misinformation and increase vaccine demand worldwide. And it's using social media influencers to silence vaccine detractors.

A Tangled Web

PGP is headquartered in New York and was founded in 2013. Its current CEO is Dr. Joe Smyser, who holds a Ph.D. and master's in public health and completed his postdoctoral training at the CDC.

The Tennessee Department of Health states about Smyser and PGP, "Dr. Smyser has designed some of the United States' most influential and impactful health campaigns to date in partnership with the CDC, FDA, Kaiser Permanente, Rockefeller, and Humana."

According to its website, the CDC Foundation is "the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's critical health protection work."

Since its creation, the CDC Foundation has started more than 1,300 "health protection programs" and raised more than $2 billion in support for the CDC.

One of those health protection programs is PGP partner PHCC, which, according to its website, was formed in August 2020 to "provide unbiased communication about the COVID-19 pandemic." And one of the ways PHCC accomplishes that is by putting out " Misinformation Alerts," which are powered by PGP.

For example, on March 23, PHCC posted on its website that a "well-known anti-vaccine physician" claimed that COVID-19 vaccines caused an increase in miscarriages and stillbirths. It labeled it a "high-risk alert" and recommended "directly addressing and debunking the misinformation."

That " debunking," according to PHCC, includes using a "strong, robust social mobilization" to amplify messages from the World Health Organization and UNICEF, encouraging social media organizations to flag "misinformation," and promoting "trusted pro-vaccine voices."

Enter Shots Heard.

Shots Heard and Team Halo

On its homepage, Shots Heard states, "If you stand up for vaccine science, we'll stand up for you." It includes a link for people to apply to "sign up to defend vaccine advocates." It also provides a link to "Alert the Shots Heard Cavalry," plus a link to a members-only Facebook group, which currently has 1,176 members.

An insider in the group who requested to remain anonymous for fear of being kicked out supplied The Epoch Times with screenshots and messages of the Shots Heard Facebook group.

In one "alert," a Shots Heard member named Bernadine Huff posted, "It's important for all of us to stop the insanity and to call out other healthcare workers that don't believe in science."

She encouraged Shots Heard members to "report" a graduate nurse named Megan to the Ohio Nursing Board for providing information on how to get a medical exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine. The replies from numerous Shots Heard members simply state, "reported."

In another "alert," Shots Heard group administrator Jeff Sykes posts, "Hey Shots Heard, it's been brought to our attention that Dr. Scott Jensen has been using his online platforms to spread misinformation about COVID-19. ... We need your help reporting him."

Shots Heard member Marcia Fiamengo posted, "Need help reporting this group," and linked to a group promoting ivermectin. Among the many who replied was New York's Suffolk County Department of Health account, which wrote, "Reported."

Fiamengo also posted on Dec. 29, 2021, "Fantastic news," and attached a screenshot of Dr. Robert Malone's suspended Twitter account. Shots Heard member Angie Anderson states in the comments, "Ooooh, I just reported a few of his posts yesterday. So satisfying when you see real results."

On March 24, 2022, Fiamengo encouraged Shots Heard members to report Bowden. Again, Suffolk County Health responded, this time with "Done."

On May 2, 2022, Fiamengo again made a celebratory post. This time for an American Frontline doctor's being stripped of all state licenses after prescribing ivermectin. "Wooooo!!!! Another one bites the dust!" she wrote.

Shots Heard doesn't limit itself to reporting single health care practitioners. On Sep. 12, 2021, Shots Heard member Liz Ditz reported a preprint by researchers Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, Allison Krug, Josh Stevenson, and Dr. John Mandrola that found that vaccine-induced myocarditis might be worse than COVID-19-induced myocarditis. Shots Heard members were outraged.

Moreover, Shots Heard doesn't limit itself to simply "reporting." When Bowden posted on Twitter, "Are Americans supposed to take this [expletive]? We don't want your shot, and we especially don't want it for our kids," her post was flagged and flooded with Shots Heard member comments.

Such tactics are called "gang stalking," Nicole Sirotek, a registered nurse in Nevada and the founder of American Frontline Nurses, told The Epoch Times.

"[Shots Heard members] make videos about [the offending health care worker] saying they need to be delicensed, then [Shots Heard] followers go and hunt down the nurse and swarm the licensing board," she said.

Sirotek has been the victim of many such attacks from Shots Heard and Team Halo-the two groups share many of the same members.

For example, in December 2022, Team Halo member Jess, who posts under the TikTok handle @jesss2019, doxed Sirotek on TikTok by revealing a previously court-sealed name change. Jess is a "Featured Influencer" for The Health Influencer Council, another PGP project that includes Shots Heard, and This Is Our Shot - a "diverse coalition of health heroes" who engage on social media to combat misinformation and build vaccine trust, according to its website.

An Inside Look

Tyler Hardy, a previous Team Halo member known as "your favorite field epidemiologist" until he ignited a social media firestorm for lying about some of his credentials, told The Epoch Times he's seen both sides of the social initiates.

"I joined Team Halo at the beginning of 2022, in January. I was invited by nurse Jess [@jesss2019]," Hardy said. "I wanted to educate, and that was why I thought Team Halo would be good because it would give me the exposure to do that.

"As I got behind the scenes of these big creators, right, these people like Dr. Cat and Dr. Jon, Jess, @thatsassynp, I learned that they were, pardon my French, just [expletive]. And they let that stardom of being part of Team Halo get to their head."

During his time at Team Halo, Hardy said Team Halo members communicated over a private WhatsApp chat. According to Hardy, any time a Team Halo member disagreed with someone online, they would "just put it in the chat, and then every single person in Team Halo would instantly jump on them, get them fired."

"They would have all of their followers reach out to the nursing boards to basically attack them in several different ways," he said. "And so it was very much a situation where if you didn't support Team Halo, you were part of the problem.

"I mean, Nicole's [Sirotek] entire life was put on display for the world to see because of Jess and Tyler. They posted her car and where she lives. We knew all about Nicole, like in and out, intimate details of her because of what Jess did."

Hardy also said that because Team Halo and TikTok had an agreement, TikTok didn't apply the same community standards to Team Halo members' accounts. "When you go with Team Halo, you get special privileges," he said. "TikTok lets you basically bully and harass people and do things that other people can't do, and you don't get the community guidelines violations. You get whitelisted."

All that changed for Hardy when Savannah accused him of faking his credentials. For that, Hardy explained that another TikTok user harassed him to prove he was a licensed social worker and addiction counselor. However, Hardy didn't have such credentials and "flashed" another person's certificates in a TikTok video.

Hardy expounded that he never practiced under that person's license and did it to "embarrass" the other poster.
He said: "I simply flashed it on the screen as sort of a diversionary tactic, and so I understand that was really stupid. It was a combination of constantly being harassed and bombarded, the fact that I was going through a pretty terrible breakup at the same time in my personal life. And also, it was just the stardom of social media. I didn't think I could do anything wrong."

Hardy is apologetic about his actions but added that Team Halo allowed it to blow up into something much bigger. Before he officially joined Team Halo, Hardy had to fill out an application that included two forms of identification and his college credentials. Plus, Team Halo contacted his employer.

"I mean, they knew that I was an epidemiologist for the state of Colorado. Like, that was not unclear to anybody," Hardy said.

Hardy supplied The Epoch Times with his employment offer letter from the CDC Foundation. It's dated Oct. 27, 2021, and reads, "Dear Tyler, I am so pleased to offer you the position of Epidemiologist for the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Inc. (CDC Foundation)."

Despite the background check, Hardy said he was still accused by other Team Halo members of faking being an epidemiologist. After he was removed as a member, everyone started releasing videos.

"Later that afternoon, almost like clockwork, they all started to release videos admonishing me at the same time," Hardy said. "They were all very scripted. You can tell the difference between when someone speaks in their scripted tone and their natural flow. And I knew exactly what it was because we had been scripted lots of times for Team Halo videos."

But that wasn't the end of Hardy's Team Halo experience. "Anytime I apply for a job, people know and they call the job ahead of time to tell them that I'm, you know, a monster and that I stole a black woman's credentials.

"And I'm just like, 'You know what? I deserve to be held accountable for the lies that I told,' I'm not diminishing that. But I don't have to be held accountable by anybody but God and the court system. I'm working on doing better. I'm going to therapy; I'm doing the right thing. But I constantly hear it. I'm constantly harassed by these people online."

Hardy said about Shots Heard and Team Halo, "If you are against [them], you're destroyed, and there's no retribution. Like, there is no retribution whatsoever."

'Vaccine Hesitancy'

In addition to its social media initiates, PGP runs The Public Good News, a nonprofit newsroom "dedicated to accurate health news." It states of its mission, "The erosion of trust in science and shared facts is a threat to our democratic way of life." On Jan. 20, it posted an article titled, "CDC data shows bivalent boosters are safe."

To combat "vaccine hesitancy worldwide," on April 29, 2021, UNICEF, the Yale Institute for Global Health, and PGP started the Vaccination Demand Observatory.

Of its efforts to increase vaccinations, PGP stated, "The coronavirus pandemic is the defining public health crisis of our time, and the U.S.-and the world-is currently in the middle of the largest immunization campaign in history. Yet misinformation threatens these efforts, fueling an 'infodemic' of myths, lies, and inaccurate information. In the campaigns below, we use our expertise in media monitoring to fight misinformation and decrease vaccine hesitancy."

Some of PGP's recent include Google, The Rockefeller Foundation, UNICEF, and Yale Institute for Global Health.

PGP, Shots Heard, and Team Halo didn't respond by press time to requests by The Epoch Times for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CDC Partners With 'Social and Behavior Change' Initiative to Silence Vaccine Hesitancy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Stanford-educated ear, nose, and throat doctor, isn't afraid to voice her beliefs. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, she repeatedly used her platform on Twitter and TikTok to question the vaccines, promote ivermectin as a treatment, and call out pharmacists for refusing to dispense it.

# data[].attributes.body
https://report.foundationforfreedomonline.com/11-22-22.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When most people think of the National Science Foundation (NSF), they think about the US government investing tax dollars in grand advancements in mathematics, aerospace and engineering.

But under the Biden administration, the fastest-growing field of NSF grant funding appears to be the science of censorship.

At Foundation for Freedom Online, we previously reported the strange fact that the exact two universities who partnered with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to censor the 2020 election received a $3 million joint grant from the National Science Foundation just months after the election ended.

Neither of those two academic "disinfo labs" were taxpayer-funded before the 2020 election. But then, after an election where in effect they exclusively censored the social media opposition of the current administration, suddenly the current administration started hooking them up with government grants.

After that revelation, we investigated every NSF grant issued in 2021 and 2022 relating to social media "misinformation" or "disinformation." Our goal was to determine the extent to which NSF is spending US tax dollars on censoring US taxpayers.

Our findings were profoundly disturbing.

Since the start of 2021, NSF has issued 64 government grants on the science of "countering" social media "mis/disinformation," totaling $31.8 million. It has also issued two government grants, totaling $7 million. That brings a total of NSF-funded scientific censorship research to $38.8 million since the start of the Biden administration.

In just two years, those 64 government censorship grants were spread across 42 different colleges and universities. This incredible range of recipients covers every level of the country's higher education institutions, both regionally and in terms of prestige.

The most highly NSF-funded "Misinformation/Disinformation" grantee universities are:

State University of New York (SUNY) - 4 unique grants, cumulatively totaling $4.22 million

George Washington University - 4 unique grants, cumulatively totaling $4 million.

University of Wisconsin - 3 unique grants, cumulatively totaling $3.83 million

University of Washington - 3 unique grants, cumulatively totaling $3.52 million

It is notable that #4 on that above list is University of Washington (UW), which is one of the two institutions that DHS worked directly with - and chose as a formal partner - to censor the 2020 election.

For example, below are a few sample videos of the "disinformation" work being done at UW, as explained by UW's "disinfo lab" founder, Kate Starbird:

And here is UW "disinfo" lab founder Kate Starbird using advanced monitoring AI to map out entire networks of people who spread an election narrative her lab helped censor off of social media:

In a separate report, we will break down a list of the most highly NSF-funded "Mis/Disinformation" topics (Covid, elections, media distrust, etc.) and the most Orwellian grant descriptions we found.

As a preview of that full-breakdown analysis, below is just one NSF grant we'll highlight in this report, which is representative of the brazen political targeting being done by the Biden Administration with government funds under the pretext of funding "science."

On May 1, 2022, NSF gave a $200,000 grant to George Washington University (see full grant details here) with the following grant description:

PANDEMIC COMMUNICATION IN TIME OF POPULISM: This project uses several methods to study how populist politicians distorted Covid-19 pandemic health communication to encourage polarized attitudes and distrust among citizens, thus making them more vulnerable to misinformation....

It also studies how best to counter these populist narratives and develop more effective communication channels. The research studies four areas of communication: government-led pandemic communication, media policy, media coverage, and public attitudes towards the media. The project makes an important contribution to research on populist communication and political polarization by bringing two fields of expertise - populist communication and public health - together.

The project will also study how best to counter these populist narratives and develop more efficient and reliable communication. The focus is on four countries - Brazil, Poland, Serbia, and the US - all led by populist leaders during the pandemic and capture different types of populist responses to the pandemic... This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.

So this is a government grant, funded by the NSF, which explicitly takes aim at "populist politicians," "populist communications," and targets the former "populist leaders" of four countries - including the United States.

To ram the radical bias home, the NSF grant explicitly says the goal of the funding is "to counter these populist narratives." That is, point blank, just the US government using US taxpayer funds to counter the social media opinions of half of the entire US electorate.

Isn't the government supposed to work for us?
Methodology
This Foundation for Freedom Online analysis was done through open source review of the public entries available at USAspending.gov. We aggregated this list from the 70 grants and 2 contracts awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) during FY2021 and 2022, filtered by the keywords "misinformation" and "disinformation": https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=bc7ca2e75925d281c387468a703a931f

We also ran NSF grant searches for other censorship proxy terms like "'media literacy', 'digital literacy,' 'resilience,' and 'content moderation.' Here, we found additional grants to add to this list, but we decided not to include those additional entries in the interest of avoiding confusion and keeping this report squarely focused on "mis/disinformation" as a censorship predicate.

Of those 70 in-scope grants, we removed two from our analysis because they predated FY2021 as a start date.

Of that 68-grant subtotal, the aggregate NSF funding amount was $38,634,848 (plus the $7 million in government contracts, netting a total of over $45 million).

However, we wanted to be as charitable and conservative to the NSF as possible, so from there we eliminated grants that had "misinformation" or "disinformation" in the grant description, but where those terms were clearly "shoehorned in" rather than being the direct focus.

Accordingly, we removed four grants from the 68 subtotal because a review of their specific contents appeared to be duplicative or not primarily about "social media misinformation/disinformation" or Internet censorship.

That gave us the 64-grant total. You can find our fully searchable data set of those 64 grants available in the hyperlink below:
https://www.scribd.com/document/609594167/NSF-Government-Grants-for-Mis-Disinformation-FY2021-2022-Raw-Data
As noted above, we will be supplementing this report with detailed breakdowns by censorship category and targeting type. If the scale and scope of taxpayer dollars is shocking by itself, trust us, it gets much worse when you see the deep specifics of how the censorship sausage is made in each case.

In the meantime, the takeaway is clear: under the Biden Admin, the NSF is funding the idea that if citizen trust in government cannot be earned organically, then it must be installed by science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden's National Science Foundation Has Pumped Nearly $40 Million Into Social Media Censorship Grants and Contracts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When most people think of the National Science Foundation (NSF), they think about the US government investing tax dollars in grand advancements in mathematics, aerospace and engineering. But under the Biden administration, the fastest-growing field of NSF grant funding appears to be the science of censorship.

# data[].attributes.body
https://globalcovidsummit.org/censorship/letter-to-the-abfm-in-support-of-dr-john-littell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
April 6, 2023
Re: Board certification of John Littell, MD
To: American Board of Family Medicine 1648 McGrathiana Pkwy Suite 550 Lexington, KY 40511

Attn: Warren Newton, MD, MPH, President; Rachel Shelton, Associate Counsel; Andrea Back, MHA, Credentialing Assistant

To Whom It May Concern:

As physicians and scientists we note with concern the disciplinary action by the American Board of Family Medicine, dated March 16, 2023, suspending the board certification of John Littell, MD, justifying this arbitrary and unwarranted action on the grounds that Dr. Littell allegedly disseminated "medical misinformation" via public channels. The ABFM's letter notifying Dr. Littell of the disciplinary action not only fails to demonstrate adequate grounds for such punishment, but is itself riddled with scientific errors and inaccuracies, which could be considered "medical misinformation" in their own right. In drawing your attention to these misstatements and false claims, we request an immediate reinstatement of Dr. Littell's board certification as well as a public apology to Dr. Littell, whose long service as a conscientious clinician is reflected in his sterling professional reputation.

This letter comprises three sections:

I) Analysis demonstrating that the comments by Littell incorrectly labeled "misinformation" by the ABFM are simple statements of fact supported by scientific evidence.

II) Presentation of evidence that the spike protein encoded in the mRNA vaccines is itself a pathogen.

III) Review of significant changes in medical guidance from countries which are our closest peers in terms of public health policy, drastically curtailing COVID-19 vaccination for healthy young people.

I. Dr. Littell's statements are based in scientific fact

The public statements by Dr. Littell which your organization deems "misinformation" are all supported by peer-reviewed research published in reputable scientific journals. We will address the examples cited in the ABFM's letter one by one.

1. The ABFM cites examples of Dr. Littell referring to the mRNA vaccines as "genetic engineering," arguing that the vaccines cannot be considered genetic engineering because the "mRNA does not enter the nucleus of cells where genes are present."

The ABFM is wrong. Common definitions of genetic engineering make no mention of nucleic acid-based material entering the nucleus. Merriam-Webster defines genetic engineering as "The group of applied techniques of genetics and biotechnology used to cut up and join together genetic material and especially DNA from one or more species of organism and to introduce the result into an organism in order to change one or more of its characteristics." By this definition, mRNA vaccines qualify as genetic engineering because they change the characteristics of vaccine recipients by inducing an immune reaction that results in long-lasting changes in B and T cells. Additionally, contrary to the ABFM's claim, research has shown that the mRNA contained in the vaccines can in fact penetrate the nucleus of animal cells and undergo reverse transcription into DNA.

- Alden, Markus, Francisko Olofsson Falla, et al. "Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line." Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44(3), 1115-1126. Doi: 10.3390/cimb44030073

Summary: "Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.

2. The ABFM claims that Dr. Littell's statement that COVID-19 vaccines have killed more young people than the disease itself is misinformation, citing flawed and incomplete CDC data.

The ABFM is wrong. Reliable population-level data from the United Kingdom, which is more transparent and forthcoming than that provided by U.S. federal government agencies, shows that all-cause mortality has been consistently higher among vaccinated young people than their unvaccinated peers.

- The U.S. government hasn't released all-cause mortality data broken down by vaccinated versus unvaccinated status or stratified by age, but the UK, perhaps our closest peer in terms of healthcare provision, pandemic response, and the socioeconomic factors underlying health released this data regularly between April 2021 and December 2022, the height of the British mass vaccination campaign.

- In the English NHS 18-39 age group, age-standardized mortality per 100,000 person-years was lower among unvaccinated than vaccine recipients who received the first dose "at least 21 days ago" for 18 out of 21 months over that time period. Over the entire period, the average age-standardized monthly mortality rate among unvaccinated individuals ages 18-39 was 47.7 per 100,000 person-years, compared to 65.4 per 100,000 person-years for vaccine recipients who received the first dose "at least 21 days ago."

- U.S. data on mortality from COVID-19 disease versus mRNA vaccination among young people fails to account, on one hand, for wide prevalence of prior infection among young people according to the CDC's own estimates, and on the other, established underreporting of vaccine adverse events including deaths based on historic data.

3. The ABFM letter states, "There is no evidence that pediatric myocarditis deaths attributed to covid vaccinations are more numerous than prevented deaths, serious illness or hospitalizations from COVID. The myocarditis caused by COVID vaccination is mild and not associated with fatalities."

The ABFM is wrong. Data from independent domestic studies and foreign public health agencies in peer nations indicates that both incidence and severity of post-vaccination myocarditis and other cardiovascular harms are higher than official U.S. estimates. There is evidence that myocarditis resulting from vaccination is more common than myocarditis resulting from COVID-19 disease.

A. Multiple studies contradict a commonly cited estimate placing the incidence of post- vaccination myocarditis at a rate of one symptomatic case per 10,000 vaccinated individuals ages 12-15, falling to one per 12,500 individuals ages 16-17. By definition, symptomatic myocarditis requiring hospitalization is not mild, and therefore a major concern.

- Li, Xue, et al. "Myocarditis Following COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccination Among Adolescents in Hong Kong." JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(6):612-614. Doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.0101

Summary: In Hong Kong researchers estimated the incidence at one symptomatic case per 4,515 individuals ages 12-17 who received the Pfizer vaccine.

- Karlstad, Øystein, et al. "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents." JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(6):600-612. Doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0583

Summary: This Scandinavian study estimated the upper range of myocarditis incidence at 28 per 100,000 males ages 16-24 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine, or around one in 3,570.

- Chiu, Shuenn-Nan, et al. "Changes of ECG parameters after BNT162b2 vaccine in the senior high school students." Eur J Pediatr. (2023). Doi: 10.1007/s00431- 022-04786

Summary: This study of 4,928 Taiwanese high school students found 17.1% experienced cardiac symptoms after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, including one case of myocarditis and four others with "significant arrhythmia."

- Krug, Allison, et al. "BNT162b2 Vaccine‐Associated Myo/Pericarditis in Adolescents: A Stratified Risk‐Benefit Analysis." Eur J Clin Invest. 2022 May; 52(5): e13759. Doi: 10.1111/eci.13759

Summary: Researchers using data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) calculated the rate of myocarditis and pericarditis among boys ages 12-15 after the second dose of Pfizer at 162.2 per million, or roughly one in 6,165.

B. Smaller studies suggest asymptomatic post-vaccination myocarditis may be more common than generally understood.

- "Temporary mild damage to heart muscle cells after Covid-19 booster vaccination." MyScience. November 9, 2022.

Summary: In this Swiss study tracking 777 healthcare workers who received an mRNA booster, 2.8% showed elevated levels of troponin, a biomarker signaling cardiac damage.

- Mansanguan, Suyanee, et al. "Cardiovascular Manifestation of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents." Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7(8), 196. Doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7080196

Summary: This Thai study of 301 high school students who received the Pfizer vaccine found 29% experienced cardiac symptoms, including one student diagnosed with myopericarditis, as well as four with suspected subclinical myocarditis and two with suspected pericarditis, for a total incidence of 2.3% when suspected cases are included.

C. No U.S. public health authorities have addressed the potential for long-term damage from post-vaccination myocarditis, despite mounting evidence of lasting harms in young people.

- Kracalik, Ian, et al. "Outcomes at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults in the USA: a follow-up surveillance study." Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022; 6: 788-98. Doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00244-9

Summary: Researchers at Vanderbilt University screened 151 patients who experienced myocarditis after mRNA vaccination with cardiac MRIs 90 days later, finding over half (54%) showed "late gadolinium enhancement," a sign of myocardial fibrosis or scar tissue on the heart.

- Ghanizada, Muzhda, et al. "Long-term prognosis following hospitalization for acute myocarditis - a matched nationwide cohort study." Scand. Cardiovasc. J. 2021;55:5. Doi: 10.1080/14017431.2021.1900596

Summary: This Danish study tracked 1,557 patients diagnosed with myocarditis from 1996-2016 and concluded, "Myocarditis in younger patients without prior cardiac disease was associated with a long-term excess risk of [heart failure] hospitalization, and death," with an incidence of heart failure hospitalization over four times the control group, and a death rate double the control group.

D. Claims that myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection is more common and more severe than myocarditis resulting from vaccination are contradicted by scientific evidence.

- Tuvali, O, Sagi Tshori, et al. "The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients-A Large Population-Based Study." J Clin Med. 2022 Apr 15;11(8):2219. Doi: 10.3390/jcm11082219

Summary: This study compared 196,992 individuals who experienced acute COVID-19 infection with a control group of 590,976 individuals representing the baseline rate in the population. 0.0102% of individuals with COVID-19 infection were diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis, comparable to the control group rate of 0.013%. The authors concluded: "

Discussion: The very low rate of symptomatic myocarditis and pericarditis associated with COVID-19 infection (0.0102% = 1/9,804) must be weighed against the findings, cited above, suggesting symptomatic myocarditis rates ranging from 1/3,570 to 1/6,165 in healthy young people post-vaccination.

4. The ABFM denies that mass vaccination can give rise to viral variants that evade vaccine-conferred protection.

The ABFM is wrong. It is generally acknowledged that mass vaccination with a "leaky" (non-sterilizing) vaccine can give rise to viral variants that evade the vaccine. The fact that viruses evolve on their own, in the absence of vaccines, does not preclude the possibility of evolution in response to vaccines when they are present.

- William, TC, and Wendy A Burgers. "SARS-CoV-2 evolution and vaccines: cause for concern?" Lancet Res Med. Apr 2021 9;4: 333-335. Doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00075-8

Summary: "When a virus is grown under the selective pressure of a single monoclonal antibody that targets a single epitope on a viral protein, mutations in that protein sequence will lead to the loss of neutralisation, and the generation of escape mutants. This sequence of events has been shown in the laboratory for polio, measles, and respiratory syncytial virus, and in 2020 for SARS-CoV-2."

Discussion: "In principle, these findings suggest that variants of SARS-CoV-2 could evolve with resistance to immunity induced by recombinant spike protein vaccines (which are based on the original sequence, Wuhan-Hu-1) in some people..."

- The Delta variant arose in Maharashtra state, India, following the beginning of phase III clinical trials for the AstraZeneca/Oxford/Serum Institute of India COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) at eight locations in that state, meaning that a causal link between vaccination and the evolution of the variant cannot be ruled out.

5. The ABFM claims it is "incorrect to suggest that people who have had prior infection with COVID-19 receive no benefit from vaccination post-infection."

The ABFM is wrong. The benefit from vaccination for healthy young people with natural immunity from prior infection is negligible, short-lived, and must be weighed against the real risks of vaccines themselves (see item 2 above, and II below).

- Lin, DY, Yu Gu, et al. "Effects of Vaccination and Previous Infection on Omicron Infections in Children." N Engl J Med 2022; 387:1141-1143. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2209371

Summary: This study compared the effect of the Pfizer vaccine to natural immunity alone and natural immunity plus vaccination in a cohort of almost 900,000 individuals ages 12-17. The results showed not only that natural immunity on its own was far superior to vaccination without natural immunity, but that the additional protection from vaccination on top of natural immunity was barely measurable (less than 10%) and short-lived. In light of possible confounding factors acknowledged by the authors, the alleged benefit must be considered small to nonexistent.

Discussion: A letter commenting on the study noted, "After approximately 5 months, the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing hospitalization was 97.9% (95% CI, 53.1 to 99.9), as compared with 76.1% (95% CI, 27.8 to 92.1) after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine, and the effectiveness of previous infection remained high (86.9%; 95% CI, −0.4 to 98.3) at 10 months... Contrary to the authors' conclusions, the findings do not support a role for boosters in either

6. The ABFM claims that Dr. Littell compared the U.S. public health system's response to COVID-19 to Nazi Germany.

The ABFM is wrong. In the quote cited, Dr. Littell warned against a public health response which suppresses dissenting views and coerces clinicians into betraying their own ideals and independent judgment, and urged health authorities to stop threatening healthcare providers for questioning official positions in a period when the state of scientific knowledge is changing from day to day. Dr. Littell invoked the experience of doctors in Nazi Germany as a cautionary tale, showing what can happen if political considerations are allowed to take precedence over science and medical ethics.

7. The ABFM claims that Dr. Littell stated that he would give medical exemptions from vaccination to "anyone" in the absence of a doctor-patient relationship.

The ABFM is wrong. Nowhere in the quote cited does Dr. Littell state that he would give medical exemptions without first establishing a doctor-patient relationship.

8. The ABFM takes issues with statements made by individuals at a conference organized by Dr. Littell in October 2022. While it is inappropriate for the ABFM to punish Dr. Littell for the opinions of others, we will also show that these statements were grounded in scientific evidence.

- The ABFM notes that Dr. Ryan Cole displayed a slide from the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showing a dramatic increase in cancer deaths in 2021 following the rollout of the mRNA vaccines, but your letter does not appear to take issue with this statement of fact. Dr. Cole has hypothesized that the mRNA vaccines are causing an increase in cancer incidence due to the downregulation of toll-like receptors by the substitution of pseudouridine for uridine in the synthetic mRNA, which allows it to evade normal immune response in order to penetrate cells. The ABFM offers no argument or evidence to show that this is not the case.

- The ABFM cites Dr. Angela Farella's advice to parents not to get their children vaccinated against COVID-19. In light of the risks discussed above (2) and below (II), this must be considered a plausible cost-benefit assessment.

- The ABFM cites Dr. Farella's statement that masks induce hypoxia in children. Unfortunately there are virtually no high-quality studies addressing masking in children. However, a number of previous studies of masking in adult healthcare workers have shown decreases in oxygen saturation and oxygen consumption. More important are the results of this recent Cochrane meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of both surgical and N95 masks, showing that masking mandates targeting untrained individuals likely have no impact on transmission.

- The ABFM cites statements by Dr. James Thorp that the mRNA vaccines are causing intrauterine demise and killing pregnant women and newborn children. Dr. Thorp has presented evidence supporting these assertions here. Of note, after two years of obfuscation, in December 2022 it was revealed that Moderna's laboratory trials found an adverse impact of the vaccine on fetal development in rats, resulting in congenital ribcage malformations, confirming that adverse effects on pregnancy are possible.

II. The spike protein encoded for by the mRNA vaccines is itself a pathogen

As part of the organization's mission aiding members in caring for the health of children and young people, ABFM should be aware of a large and growing body of scientific evidence that the spike protein encoded for by the mRNA vaccines is itself pathogenic independent of the rest of the COVID-19 virus, inflicting a range of harms in tissues and organ systems throughout the body. In this letter we will focus on cardiac damage and thrombosis, but we emphasize that these are only two out of a number of pathologies where the spike protein shows potential for harm, including neurologic, metabolic, oncogenic, and immune injuries.

1. Research has demonstrated that the spike protein is harmful to cardiac endothelial cells, myocytes, and pericytes - the likely causal mechanisms behind myocarditis.

- Lei, Yuyang, et al. "SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2." Circ. Res. 2021;128:1323-1326. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

Summary: This study, published by the Salk Institute in March 2021, showed that the spike protein can damage endothelial tissue by lowering levels of ACE2, an enzyme that helps control the activity of mitochondria, fragmenting the mitochondria and causing inflammation.

- Avolio, Elisa, et al. "The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein disrupts human cardiac pericytes function through CD147 receptor-mediated signalling: a potential non- infective mechanism of COVID-19 microvascular disease." Clin Sci (Lond). 2021 Dec 22;135(24):2667-2689. Doi: 10.1042/CS20210735

Summary: This study showed that the spike protein disrupted the activity of pericytes, resulting in inflammation of the heart tissue and damage to blood vessels.

-"Coronavirus Spike Protein Activated Natural Immune Response, Damaged Heart Muscle Cells." DAIC. July 27, 2022.

Summary: This research, first presented in July 2022 showed that the spike protein is also toxic to myocytes.

- Yonker, Lael M, et al. "Circulating Spike Protein Detected in Post-COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Myocarditis." Circulation. 2023;0. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025

Summary: This study, published in January 2023, showed that myocarditis is strongly linked to the level of "free" spike protein, not attached to antibodies, in blood plasma.

2. Research has shown that the spike protein, independent of the rest of the virus, is also causally linked to thrombosis, raising the risk of heart attack and stroke, among other potential harms.

- Li, Tianyang, et al. "Platelets mediate inflammatory monocyte activation by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein." J Clin Invest. 2022 Feb 15; 132(4): e150101. Doi: 10.1172/JCI150101

Summary: The spike protein appears to bind angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), directly to platelets and endothelial cells, setting off a "coagulation cascade" and forming blood clots.

- Zheng, Yi, et al. "SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causes blood coagulation and thrombosis by competitive binding to heparan sulfate." Int J Biol Macromol. 2021 Dec 15; 193: 1124-1129. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.10.112

Summary: The spike protein binds and disables heparan sulfate, which usually regulates heparin, another clotting factor.

- Grobbelaar, Lize M, et al. "SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 induces fibrin(ogen) resistant to fibrinolysis: implications for microclot formation in COVID-19." Biosci Rep. 2021 Aug 27; 41(8): BSR20210611. Doi: 10.1042/BSR20210611

Summary: The spike protein interacts with fibrinogen, a protein that plays a key role in coagulation, to form blood clots that are especially resistant to anti-clotting factors.

- DeMichele, Manuela, et al. "Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on retrieved thrombi from COVID-19 patients." J Hematol Oncol 15, 108 (2022). Doi: 10.1186/s13045-022-01329-w

Summary: Spike proteins have been found in blood clots from patients who suffered heart attacks or strokes during COVID infection, without the rest of the virus, again confirming that the spike protein is a pathogen on its own.

III. U.S. peer countries are dramatically scaling back COVID-19 vaccination

The scientific evidence discussed above is sufficient to cast serious doubt on the claim that the mRNA vaccines are "100% safe and effective." In short, vaccines which decrease the individual's chances of dying from COVID-19, but increase their chances of dying from other causes, cannot be said to be beneficial. If these vaccines also fail to stop transmission, as has now been amply demonstrated with COVID-19, there can be no conceivable reason to administer them to healthy young people who are at very low risk of severe disease.

On that note, a number of developed countries with healthcare systems of comparable sophistication have diverged sharply from the U.S. on the necessity and advisability of mass vaccination against COVID-19. This sudden parting of ways with America's closest peer nations should give us pause, raising the question of whether our country needs to rethink its policies in this important area. The list of countries scaling back vaccination includes:

- United Kingdom: After recommending COVID-19 vaccination for most individuals, in July 2021 the UK stopped recommending vaccination for individuals under 18, and in February 2023 drastically reduced the scale of the vaccine program, limiting new vaccinations and boosters to high-risk individuals, such that, "for a large portion of people, there will be no more COVID vaccines."

- Nordic countries have moved to limit vaccination to older adults, with the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish governments no longer offering vaccination for individuals under 18 and limiting boosters to individuals ages 50+, 45+, and 65+, respectively.

- In April 2022 Japan limited second boosters to individuals ages 60+ and individuals 18+ with serious health conditions.

- Switzerland recommends against vaccinating children under age 16.

- In February 2023 the Netherlands limited vaccination under age 12 to children with serious health conditions.

Conclusion: Urgent Calls for Reinstatement and Reconsideration

We, the undersigned physicians and scientists, consider it our ethical duty to urgently bring these matters to the attention of the ABFM. We hereby call on your organization not only to immediately reinstate Dr. John Littell and issue a public apology to him, but to rethink your official position and cease recommending mass administration of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines and boosters to people who are at low risk of severe COVID-19 disease. While we are only beginning to understand the negative impacts of these vaccines, the evidence presented in this letter is sufficient to show their risks are serious enough to warrant extreme caution. By this letter we also remind you that the ABFM, like other professional medical societies, will be held responsible by the public for the consequences of its guidance to healthcare providers.

Sincerely,

Reem Abu-Sbaih, DO

Paul Alexander, PhD

Tawny Allen

Richard Amerling, MD

Alan Bain, DO

Patrick Abuzeni, MD

Raphael Tito Balbino, MD

Joseph Bardinelli, DO

Ricardo R. Bartelme, MD

Paul Bauer, MD

DD Raj Bendre, MD DABR DABLM

Ira P. Bernstein, MD, CCFP, FCFP

Tammy L. Birbeck, DO

Kimberly O. Biss, MD

Marsha Y. Blakeslee, DO

Calvin Blount, Jr., MD

Andrew Borom, MD

Bruce L Boros, MD, FACC

Mary Talley Bowden, MD

Timothy Boyett, MD, MPH

Byram Bridle, PhD

Avery Brinkley, MD

Douglas G. Brooks, MD

Carole H. Browner, PhD

Lisa Bryhn, MD

Liudmila Buell, MD

David J. Burkart, MD

Ora Burstein, MD

Carrie Cannon, MD, MS

Jenny Chandra, MD

Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD

David B. Clark, MD, MNS

Melanie Crites-Bachert, DO FACOS FACS

Gerilyn E Cross, MD, FACOG

Parvez Dara, MD, FACP, MBA

Mary L. Davenport, MD, MS

James DelloRusso, MD Anesthesiology

James Denninghoff, MD

Denis M. Diaz, MD Pediatrician Tavares, FL

Ashleigh E. Dixon, MD

W. Campbell Douglass III, MD, MS

Betsy Eades, DO Family Medicine

Betsy Eades, DO

Jeff Earl, DO

Alieta Eck, MD

John Eck, MD

W. Ben Edwards, MD

Anna Esparham, MD

John M Feehery, MD

Jose R. Fernandez, MD

Jay T. Flottmann, MD

Emanuel E. Garcia, MD

Helen Theresa Gelhot, MD

Jacqueline Genova, MD

Heather Gessling, MD

Shaun J. Gillis, MD

Melanie Gisler, DO

Prof. Eleftherios Gkioulekas, PhD

Russell S. Gonnering, MD MMM FACS CPHQ

Diane Gowski, MD

Ralph Grams, MD, FCAP, FACMI

Sasha Grams, DO

Dana H. Granberg-Nill, MD, FAAFP

Arthur Grinstead, MD Family Medicine Lincoln, NE

Joseph Guarino, MD, MPH, FACOEM

Stephen Guffanti, MD

Ondrej Halgas, MSc, PhD

John R. Hartman, MD DABFM FAAFP

Steve Hatfill, MD

James Hayes, MD, FAAFP, BCEM

Jennifer Hibberd, DDS MRCDC DPD

Jane Lindell Hughes, MD, FACS

L.R. Huntoon, MD, PhD, FAAN

Jose Iglesias, DO, FASN

George Isajiw, MD, K.M.

Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH

Mollie James, DO, MPH, IFMCP

Shibrah Jamil, MD

Thomas R. Johnson, MD

Senator Kathleen Kauth, Nebraska

Stephen Kebe, MD

Jeffrey A. Keenan, MD, HCLD

Kathryn Kelly, MD

Renée S. Kohanski, MD

Pierre Kory, MD

Jacqueline Koski, DO, MPH

Daniel P. Kraft, MD, MPH

Barry Krakow, MD

Emily D. Kucera, MD

N. Christine Le, MD

Katarina Lindley, DO, FACOFP

Rosina Lis, MD

Jesse Lopez Jr., DO, FACOS

Catherine Madaffari, MD, FACP

Robert Malone, MD

Jill Malone, PhD

Paul Marik, MD

Leisha Martin, PhD

Peter McCullough, MD, MPH

Dan McDyer, MD

Ellen W. McKnight, MD

Anthony G. Messina, MD, MSPH, MBA

Jon Mettert, MD

Jamie Miles, MD

Kimberly D. Milhoan, MD, FASA

Kirk A. Milhoan, MD PhD FACC FAAP

Geoff Mitchell, MD, JD, FACEP

Renata S. Moon, MD

Kirk Moore, MD

Michael B. Morgan, MD

Leah Mugo, MD

Meryl Nass, MD

Thomas Neumann, MD

Huy Nguyen, MD

MyHuong Nguyen, MD

William Nields, MD

John Nordt, MD

Aeyal Oren, DO, FACOS

Jane Orient, MD Internal Medicine Tucson, AZ

J.A. Panter, MD

Chris G. Pappas, MD, FAAFP

Elisa Peavey, DO

Ben Peck, MD

Steven Pelech, PhD

Toni Pennington, MD

Michelle Perro, MD

Gayln Perry, MD

Jason Phillips, MD

Angeliqué Pritchett, MD

Randall L. Rathbun, BMCS

Marc Rendell, MD

Steven A. Reid, MD, FAANS

Oleg Reznik, MD

Jon Richards, MD

Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD

Henry D. Rocco, MSc MD

Dr. Elizabeth Rodgers, PhD MPH

Mark Romzek, DO

David Ross, FCPA, FCA

State Representative Joel Rudman, MD

Molly Rutherford, MD, MPH, FASAM

Yusuf Saleeby, MD, CTP

David E. Scheim, PhD

Stephanie Seneff, PhD

Stephen M. Smith, MD

Senator Mark B. Steffen, MD

Daniel Stock, MD

Timothy B. Stonesifer, DO

Jeffrey B. Stricker, DO CPE FAASD FCAP

Pamela Svendsen, MD

HC Tenenbaum DDS Dip Perio PhD FRCD

Azreena B. Thomas, MD, FAES

Joseph L. Torres, M.D.

Brian Tyson, MD

Richard Urso, MD

Kenneth Varley, MD, FRCPC

Kelly Victory, MD

Deborah D. Viglione, MD

Fred Waghsul, MD

George vonHilsheimer, MD

Joel Walskog, MD

Jon Ward, MD

Sheri Weinstein, MD

Christine White, MD

Michael Wilensky, MD, FACC

J. Aaron Williams, MD

David Wiseman PhD, MRPharmS

Claire Zengerle, DO

Michael A. Zimmer, MD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Letter to the ABFM in Support of Dr. John Littell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We, the undersigned physicians and scientists, consider it our ethical duty to urgently bring these matters to the attention of the ABFM. We hereby call on your organization not only to immediately reinstate Dr. John Littell and issue a public apology to him, but to rethink your official position and cease recommending mass administration of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines and boosters to people who are at low risk of severe COVID-19 disease.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/cdc-partners-social-and-behavior-change-initiative-silence-vaccine-hesitancy

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/CKellyUAP/status/1645430545025994752

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
This was a video that Dr Zelenko made before he died. 

His brother asked me to post it. 

It may be one of his most important pieces, as when we live in a world where bioterrorism is a real threat and Covid has reminded us of the true depth of evil that man can descend into -… https://t.co/PzxZKHKQIc

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
This was a video that Dr Zelenko made before he died. 

His brother asked me to post it. 

It may be one of his most important pieces, as when we live in a world where bioterrorism is a real threat and Covid has reminded us of the true depth of evil that man can descend into -… https://t.co/PzxZKHKQIc https://t.co/UR2EbMzaB9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
This was a video that Dr Zelenko made before he died.

His brother asked me to post it.

It may be one of his most important pieces, as when we live in a world where bioterrorism is a real threat and Covid has reminded us of the true depth of evil that man can descend into -… pic.twitter.com/UR2EbMzaB9
— Craig Kelly (@CKellyUAP) April 10, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
This was a video that Dr Zelenko made before he died. 

His brother asked me to post it. 

It may be one of his most important pieces, as when we live in a world where bioterrorism is a real threat and Covid has reminded us of the true depth of evil that man can descend into -… https://t.co/PzxZKHKQIc https://t.co/UR2EbMzaB9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
This was a video that Dr Zelenko made before he died. 

His brother asked me to post it. 

It may be one of his most important pieces, as when we live in a world where bioterrorism is a real threat and Covid has reminded us of the true depth of evil that man can descend into -… https://t.co/PzxZKHKQIc https://t.co/UR2EbMzaB9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
This was a video that Dr Zelenko made before he died. 

His brother asked me to post it. 

It may be one of his most important pieces, as when we live in a world where bioterrorism is a real threat and Covid has reminded us of the true depth of evil that man can descend into -… https://t.co/PzxZKHKQIc

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/health-canada-issues-advisory-for-face-masks-containing-graphene-1.5372822

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tracking every case of COVID-19 in Canada

Coronavirus vaccination tracker: How many people in Canada have received shots?

COVID-19 protection from the flu shot? Experts wary about new study

Health Canada issues advisory for face masks containing graphene

Getting the COVID-19 shot won't result in denied claims, insurers say

Canadians in COVID-19 hot spots face more restrictions as cases keep rising

B.C. churches to appeal court decision that upheld COVID-19 restrictions

Fully vaccinated Americans can travel safely again, CDC says

What's in a name? Experts confused by terms like lockdown, shutdown, circuit breakers

U.K. bans travel from 4 more nations over virus; 39 in all

High vaccination rates decreasing COVID-19 cases in Indigenous communities

Health Canada greenlights U.S. batch of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

Is hormonal birth control a factor in developing AstraZeneca-linked blood clots? Experts say it's unlikely

Canadian family living in New Zealand receives COVID-19 benefit cheque addressed to dead daughter

What does the AstraZeneca pause mean for young Canadians who already got one dose?

Tracking variants of the novel coronavirus in Canada

Full coverage at CTVNews.ca/Coronavirus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health Canada issues advisory for face masks containing graphene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tracking every case of COVID-19 in Canada Coronavirus vaccination tracker: How many people in Canada have received shots? COVID-19 protection from the flu shot? Experts wary about new study Health Canada issues advisory for face masks containing graphene Getting the COVID-19 shot won't result in denied claims, insurers say Canadians in COVID-19 hot spots face more restrictions as cases keep rising B.C.

# data[].attributes.body
https://rumble.com/v2fz7h4-april-3-2023.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://cacuk.uk/green-light-for-vax-injury-test-case/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Green Light for Vax Injury Test Case - Class Action Covid UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vaccine Injured? SCROLL DOWN This is an update on the legal advice we received on the merits of Class Action Covid UK's case against government officials, and the direction we have decided to take, based on this. Meeting with Counsel In the last case update we explained that the Ministerial Code allows for practically unbounded discretion in...

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/feds-spied-on-canadians-during-lockdowns/article_ba43c5b2-e65d-51a3-abf5-695bb44cbce3.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The feds secretly tracked 33 million Canadians through their mobile devices by using cell towers locators to "understand the public's responsiveness during lockdown measures," says Blacklock's Reporter.

"Due to the urgency of the pandemic, the agency collected and used mobility data such as cell tower location data throughout the COVID-19 response," said Mark Johnson, spokesman for the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feds spied on Canadians during lockdowns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The feds secretly tracked 33 million Canadians through their mobile devices by using cell towers locators to "understand the public's responsiveness during lockdown measures," says Blacklock's Reporter.

# data[].attributes.body
https://open.substack.com/pub/igorchudov/p/italian-doctor-suspended-for-suggesting

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9868009/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.globalresearch.ca/ophthalmologists-ethically-obligated-denounce-covid-19-vaccines-20000-new-eye-disorders-reported/5744481

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ophthalmologists Now Ethically Obligated to Denounce COVID-19 Vaccines, as 20,000 New Eye Disorders Are Reported

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the "Translate Website" drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***
In just a few months, the World Health Organization received approximately 20,000 reports of new eye disorders that occurred post covid-19 vaccination. These reports include 303 cases of blindness and 1,625 cases of visual impairment! The European drug monitoring agency had never recorded such a severe spike in eye injuries until after the experimental vaccines were launched. These reports were collected by VigiBase and analyzed by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre in Uppsalla, Sweden.
About half of the new eye disorders were additionally reported to the U.K.'s Yellow Card adverse event reporting system, which was set up to monitor the influx of adverse events that were anticipated during this live, experimental vaccine study. Back in 2020, the vaccine makers had already entered into liability-free contracts with governments around the world. This has enabled mass vaccine injury with no recourse or accountability and set up the framework for a historic, worldwide holocaust.
Ophthalmologists need more training to properly recognize and report vaccine injury
These experimental vaccines are designed to cause inflammation throughout the body, by reprogramming human cells to produce inflammatory spike proteins that are derived from the bio-weapon itself. Eye damage is merely a symptom of this inflammation, a sign of more serious problems to come with capillaries and autoimmune issues. The inflammatory conditions caused by the vaccines provide a new revenue stream for various industries within the medical system, including ophthalmology.

With mounting evidence of eye injury post-vaccination, ophthalmologists are ethically obligated to denounce these covid-19 vaccines. The vaccines are causing acute eye injuries at scale and are an underlying cause of inflammation for future eye disorders and other health problems. However, ophthalmologists are not properly trained to recognize, diagnose and report vaccine injury.

When the U.S. FDA issued Emergency Use Authorization for these experimental 'vaccines', they did not mention eye disorders specifically. In their fact sheet, they warn, "additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."

In the UK's Yellow Card System, vaccine-induced eye damage includes 4,616 cases of severe eye pain, 3,839 cases of blurred vision, 1,808 cases of light intolerance, and 559 cases of double vision. These issues were not prevalent until the vaccine was used. Some of the eye issues are mild but could be a sign of more serious issues within the cardiovascular or nervous systems. There were 768 cases of eye irritation, 731 cases of itchy eyes, 788 cases of ocular hyperemia, 459 cases of eye strain, 400 cases of dry eye, and 653 cases of increased lacrimation.
The covid vaccine holocaust is destroying people's hearing and vision
More serious issues of swelling were documented as well, including swelling around the eye (366 incidences), swelling of the eyelid (360 incidences) eyelid oedema (298) conjunctival haemorrhage or breakage of a small eye vessel (236), periorbital oedema (171), and eye haemorrhage (169). The swelling can be indicative of more serious cerebral, spinal, and/or cardiovascular issues. Blood clots and nervous system disorders are a commonly reported adverse event. The eye disorders provide a window of opportunity to understand just how severe the inflammation is. Ophthalmologists are able to identify early signs of vaccine-induced brain swelling, cardiovascular issues and stroke to help patients seek emergency care before the patient becomes another casualty to these horrid vaccines.

One 33-year-old pilot had severe migraines and sudden vision problems following the Pfizer vaccine. The pain migrated down the back of his neck toward the bottom of his skull. The pain lasted for several days and was accompanied by dizziness, nausea, disorientation, confusion, uncontrollable shaking, and tingling in his toes and fingers. He was ultimately evaluated by doctors. The Pfizer COVID vaccine had increased the pressure in his spinal cord and brain stem, rupturing his left inner ear, and damaging his eyesight.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ophthalmologists Now Ethically Obligated to Denounce COVID-19 Vaccines, as 20,000 New Eye Disorders Are Reported - Global Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the "Translate Website" drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch. *** In just a few months, the World Health Organization received approximately 20,000 reports of new eye disorders that occurred post ...

# data[].attributes.body
https://floridianpress.com/2023/03/florida-doctor-stripped-of-board-certification-over-covid-19-misinformation/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.viralityproject.org/news/about

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anti-vaccine disinformation will pose significant challenges to the rollout and public adoption of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. The anti-vaccine movement has well-developed online networks and expertise in leveraging social channels to spread its messages. These networked activism efforts have linked longtime anti-vaccine activists, health and wellness influencers, those who object to vaccination requirements as government overreach, and politically-driven communities who have actively amplified COVID and other conspiracies. The movement is experienced, well-funded, and able to generate in-the-streets action. It has already begun to expend significant efforts to enter mainstream conversation and erode confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.

The Virality Project is a coalition of research entities focused on supporting real-time information exchange between the disinformation research community, public health officials, civil society organizations, government agencies, and social media platforms. Our objective is to detect, analyze, and respond to incidents of false and misleading narratives related to COVID-19 vaccines across online ecosystems, enabling civil society and health communicators to ultimately mitigate the impact of narratives which might otherwise undermine the public's confidence in the safety of evidence-based policies in the United States.

The Partnership consists of analysts across six of the nation's leading institutions focused on analysis of mis- and disinformation in the social media landscape: the Stanford Internet Observatory , the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public , New York University's Center for Social Media and Politics and Tandon School of Engineering , Graphika, and the National Conference on Citizenship. Members of this coalition bring with them the insights gained from their previous collaboration on the Election Integrity Partnership which, during the 2020 Election, coordinated the work of 120 analysts, published 32 blogposts on findings, and worked directly with platform partners to respond to over 800 unique incidents of election-related disinformation.

In the coming weeks, we expect to add more institutions as core research collaborators. We look forward to a full launch webinar involving all of these organizations at that point.

The Virality Project will provide actionable situational awareness and response capabilities for public health officials and other partners on the front lines of providing accurate vaccine-related information to the public. Public officials, civil society, and health sector organizations can reach the team at info@viralityproject.org .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Announcing the Virality Project - The Virality Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anti-vaccine disinformation will pose significant challenges to the rollout and public adoption of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. The anti-vaccine movement has well-developed online networks and expertise in leveraging social channels to spread its messages.

# data[].attributes.body
Uniting efforts and amplifying voices to secure our Medical Freedoms and Parental Rights
https://www.theunityproject.org/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uniting efforts and amplifying voices to secure our Medical Freedoms and Parental Rights

# data[].attributes.body
https://doctors4covidethics.org/letters/doctorsforcovidethics-letters/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Read Doctors for Covid Ethics' letters to and from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In those letters we seek evidence that foreseeable vaccine dangers were ruled out prior to human use, and call for a halt to COVID-19 vaccines on urgent safety grounds. Our first letter of warning was issued prior to clot-related vaccine suspensions around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read Doctors for Covid Ethics' letters to and from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In those letters we seek evidence that foreseeable vaccine dangers were ruled out prior to human use, and call for a halt to COVID-19 vaccines on urgent safety grounds.

# data[].attributes.body
https://vaccinerights.com/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Makes All The Difference

Alan Phillips, J.D., is the only legal expert in the United States who provides educational products and services to the general public and legal consulting services to attorneys regarding exemptions to vaccines required: 1) at birth; 2) for daycare, grade school and college enrollment in public, private and military schools; 3) as a condition of employment; 4) for military members, families, civilian contractors/employees, National Guard members, and other military persons; 5) for immigrants, including refugees and foreign-adopted children; 6) for children of parents in child custody disputes; and 7) in for other vaccine requirements in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Makes All The Difference Alan Phillips, J.D., is the only legal expert in the United States who provides educational products and services to the general public and legal consulting services to attorneys regarding exemptions to vaccines required: 1) at birth; 2) for daycare, grade school and college enrollment in public,

# data[].attributes.body
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/notice-of-war-crimes-to-health-care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Orientation for new readers.
If you decide to use this notice, print out two copies and keep a signed copy for your records. If you want to revise the text before taking it to a medical appointment, download and edit the Word version. NOTICE OF WAR CRIMES
If you have been promoting or using products known as "Covid-19 vaccines" on patients since December 2020, you have been participating in fraud, mass murder and war crimes, because medical countermeasures (MCMs), covered countermeasures, and prototype products are DOD-contracted bioweapons intended and effective for injuring, sickening and killing recipients.

You may not have known or understood your participation in fraud, mass murder and war crimes before today. I am now informing you; you have now been given notice.

This document provides:

NOTICE OF DEMAND that YOU, PROVIDER, CEASE AND DESIST from committing acts of additional fraud, mass murder and war crimes, effective as of the date of this notice, and immediately close your vaccination and immunization programs.

NOTICE OF MY REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN OR SUBMIT TO, acts of fraud, mass murder, war crimes and financial crimes you may attempt to commit today or during future visits to your facility.

NOTICE OF MY INTENT TO PROSECUTE you for fraud, mass murder, war crimes and financial crimes you commit today or during future visits to your facility, by providing witness testimony and other evidence; and

DEMAND FOR NOTICE - If you intend to restrict my access to medical care, today or during future visits, due to my refusal to participate in, aid or abet the commission of crimes, notify me immediately, in writing, of the terms and conditions of such access restrictions.

I, [John Doe], hereby notify you, [physician, nurse, pharmacist, medical student or other 'vaccinator,' 'qualified person,' or 'covered person' as designated under PREP Act, 42 USC § 247d-6d(i)(8); 42 USC 247d-6d(c)(4), and related declarations, determinations, notices, regulations and guidance issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.]

1. Individuals claiming to represent the US Government are engaged in a global chemical and biological warfare program to sicken, injure and kill targets. They are operating a chemical and biological weapons production, distribution and deployment program, through the US Department of Defense, US Department of Health and Human Services, federal, state and local health agencies and organizations, and pharmaceutical manufacturing corporations. They are funding, producing, stockpiling, and deploying lethal bioweapons fraudulently labeled, marketed and promoted as "Covid-19 vaccines," through your hands and the hands of other medical care providers around the world.

2. These DOD bioweapons have now contaminated the development, manufacture, supply, distribution and dispensing of all pharmaceutical products throughout the world. All products promoted, marketed or labeled as "immunizations" and "vaccines" are now presumptively toxic.

3. In 1996, Congress and President Clinton passed legislation arising from the Nuremberg trials and the Nuremberg Code, to protect Americans from war criminals committing war crimes, including torture, mutilation, maiming and murder. See 18 USC 2441.
4. I therefore formally REFUSE TO SUBMIT to any and all "immunization" and/or "vaccination" procedures from this date forward. It is not moral or lawful for me to submit to, commit, endorse, participate in or facilitate fraud, mass murder or war crimes.
5. The causal relationships between DOD bioweapons injections, and target injuries and deaths, were known to DOD and HHS officials, and to contract manufacturers, in Spring 2020, when the events fraudulently presented to the public as "clinical trials" began.

6. Thousands of health care providers have observed severe adverse effects (morbidity) and deaths (mortality) experienced by targets of DOD bioweapons since the covert, fraud-based, mass murder attack on the general public began in December 2020, and yet the criminal enterprise continues because you and other providers continue to participate in it.

7. To the extent you do not yet understand the military killing campaign in which you have been participating, I will provide you with supporting evidence and analysis upon request.

8. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently announced several new ICD-10 codes for use by health care providers, health insurance companies, government agencies and/or international non-governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization. These ICD-10 codes include but are not limited to:

ICD-10-CM Z28.0-, immunization not carried out because of contraindication

ICD-10-CM Z28.1-, immunization not carried out because of patient decision for reasons of belief or group pressure

ICD-10-CM Z28.2-, immunization not carried out because of patient decision for other and unspecified reason

ICD-10-CM Z28.3, underimmunization status

ICD-10-CM Z28.31, underimmunization for COVID-19 status

ICD-10-CM Z28.310, unvaccinated for COVID-19

ICD-10-CM Z28.311, partially vaccinated for COVID-19

9. Through IRS Form 1095, my employer-sponsored health insurance information and Social Security number are electronically accessible to the US Department of the Treasury. Through IRS Form 1040 and analogous forms, my bank routing and account numbers and Social Security number are also electronically accessible to the US Department of Treasury.

10. Therefore, your act of recording and/or submitting ICD-10 data regarding my REFUSAL TO SUBMIT to DOD bioweapons attacks, to my health insurance provider, employer and federal and international agencies, will expose me to digital theft of my financial resources by the IRS and Department of Treasury; digitally-blocked access to banking and financial transaction services; and resulting harms including joblessness, homelessness and hunger.

11. Your use of CDC-recommended ICD-10 Z28 codes from this date forward, aids and abets crimes under laws prohibiting fraud, coercion, theft, extortion, and related financial crimes. I therefore demand that you DO NOT LOG any "immunization" or "vaccination" ICD-10 codes into my medical records, digital, paper or any other format.
12. Effective as of the date of this Notice of War Crimes, any further conduct by you or your employees in furtherance of DOD bioweapons attacks on me shall be construed as your knowing, willing, intentional and malicious participation in fraud, mass murder, war crimes and financial crimes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Notice of War Crimes To Health Care Providers and Health Insurance Providers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Orientation for new readers. If you decide to use this notice, print out two copies and keep a signed copy for your records. If you want to revise the text before taking it to a medical appointment, download and edit the Word version.

# data[].attributes.body
People ask what can I do? How can I help?
You can send a letter to your State's Attorney General asking them to do their job and protect those they have sworn an oath to protect. Demand they convene a grand jury and bring criminal indictments against the perpetrators.
https://10letters.org/

# data[].attributes.body
https://texaslindsay.substack.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.". Click to read Texas Lindsay, a Substack publication with thousands of readers.

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/Thomas_Binder/status/1630889430989897730

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
97% of doctors agree with whomever is funding them.
And the other 3% are censored, libelled or even arrested by an anti-terrorist squad and put in the loony bin.

My full terview by @_taylorhudak
👉https://t.co/VKMoGVAIvS

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.entities.urls[].title
How Psychology Was Weaponized To Suppress Truth In The Age Of COVID

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.entities.urls[].description
My Interview by independent journalist Taylor Hudak about the weaponization of psychology, the prevailing corona narrative, modRNA and more

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
97% of doctors agree with whomever is funding them.
And the other 3% are censored, libelled or even arrested by an anti-terrorist squad and put in the loony bin.

My full terview by @_taylorhudak
👉https://t.co/VKMoGVAIvS https://t.co/tjosbb5ixY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
97% of doctors agree with whomever is funding them.
And the other 3% are censored, libelled or even arrested by an anti-terrorist squad and put in the loony bin.

My full terview by @_taylorhudak
👉https://t.co/VKMoGVAIvS pic.twitter.com/tjosbb5ixY
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) March 1, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.entities.urls[].title
How Psychology Was Weaponized To Suppress Truth In The Age Of COVID

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.entities.urls[].description
My Interview by independent journalist Taylor Hudak about the weaponization of psychology, the prevailing corona narrative, modRNA and more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
97% of doctors agree with whomever is funding them.
And the other 3% are censored, libelled or even arrested by an anti-terrorist squad and put in the loony bin.

My full terview by @_taylorhudak
👉https://t.co/VKMoGVAIvS https://t.co/tjosbb5ixY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
97% of doctors agree with whomever is funding them.
And the other 3% are censored, libelled or even arrested by an anti-terrorist squad and put in the loony bin.

My full terview by @_taylorhudak
👉https://t.co/VKMoGVAIvS https://t.co/tjosbb5ixY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
97% of doctors agree with whomever is funding them.
And the other 3% are censored, libelled or even arrested by an anti-terrorist squad and put in the loony bin.

My full terview by @_taylorhudak
👉https://t.co/VKMoGVAIvS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.entities.urls[].title
How Psychology Was Weaponized To Suppress Truth In The Age Of COVID

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.entities.urls[].description
My Interview by independent journalist Taylor Hudak about the weaponization of psychology, the prevailing corona narrative, modRNA and more

# data[].attributes.body
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/canadas-war-on-whistleblower-doctor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canada’s War on Whistleblower Doctor Exposing Covid Vaccine Damage and the State’s Money-Making Scheme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Charles Hoffe, a southern British Columbia-based emergency room and family doctor, was one of the first physicians to speak out publicly, pointing out the adverse reactions to COVID vaccination…

# data[].attributes.body
https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/gcs-fire-side-chat-with-dr-john-littell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Sarasota County Public Hospital Board held a public hearing on February 21, 2023 that reviewed the care that Sarasota Memorial Health Care System provided during the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the guidelines and references clinicians used in the treatment of covid patients. Sarasota Memorial Hospital, as many other hospitals did not allow early treatment but instead used remdesivir as part of their protocol. Their visitation protocol as noted in the report "took a heavy toll" on patients and the families. The report also noted that the hospital system cared for over 70% of Sarasota county residents during this period.

At the hearing, Dr. John Littell highlighted the lack of use of the early treatment protocols within the hospital system that have been proven safe and effective and kept many patients out of the hospital. He was later escorted by the police for disrupting the protocol of the hearing. Many have seen the video that went viral on twitter shortly after the incident.

In our interview, John shared the hardships that the medical community went through at the height of the pandemic. One of the most poignant stories was what he calls a story of two men, a mayor and a single dad. Diagnosed at the same time, went to two different hospitals. The mayor went to the hospital that allowed Dr Littell to use the early treatment, and the single dad went to the one that did not. Two lives, two stories but luckily despite the hardships of one man, still a happy story for both.

As Dr Littell said "They didn't want to hear me. They didn't want to hear the voices of people and families that were harmed" but the world has heard Dr Littell. We have heard his compassion, love and commitment to his patients and the humanity.

We salute you John, and we are honored to be standing together with you on the right side of history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr John Littell is a board certified family physician in Ocala, Florida who recently testified at the public hearing held by the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board regarding Covid-19 protocols and was escorted out by the police after the testimony.

# data[].attributes.body
Sanctioned for saving lives with IVM.
https://rumble.com/v2aui8o-closing-arguments-from-dr.-daniel-nagase-feb-24th-hearing-with-the-college-.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Closing Arguments from Dr. Daniel Nagase, Feb 24th Hearing with the College of Physicians

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Closing arguments from Dr. Daniel Nagase for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia public hearing scheduled from February 21st through February 24th, 2023.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.emilypostnews.com/p/dr-mary-talley-bowden-faces-medical

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You were the first to read about Houston Dr. Mary Talley Bowden who declared she would only treat unvaccinated COVID patients because they were refused care by other doctors. Since Bowden went public in Nov. 2021, she has become a national spokeswoman against vaccine mandates and in favor of using ivermectin (IVM) to treat COVID. Now her medical license is being challenged.

After treating over 5,500 patients with COVID, Bowden is facing the Texas Medical Board (TMB) for complaints against her from two Texas hospitals. She is not accused of harming a single patient.

"I'm still treating my patients while forced to fight for my license," Bowden told Friday after an "informal" hearing with members of the TMB.

"People close to me have encouraged me to give up for my own well-being, but I've witnessed too much and could not live with myself if I didn't keep going. I did nothing wrong and will fight for what's right - which is caring for patients."

It serves as a precedent for all of our nation's medical boards

The doctor is facing complaints from Houston Methodist Hospital and Texas Health Huguely Hospital in Fort Worth.

Bowden told me the board offered her a settlement. She would have to admit guilt, pay a $5,000 fine, take eight hours of Continuing Medical Education and a jurisprudence exam. She refused.

"I will not plead guilty to crimes I didn't commit," the Stanford-educated doctor told me. She is pursuing a public hearing so that there are "no anonymous accusations" and she will be able to bring her own witnesses. Dr. Bowden is on Substack

Texas Health Huguley complained to the board over Bowden treating dying Sheriff Deputy Jason Jones by prescribing IVM without having hospital privileges.

Attorney Beth Parlato represented the Jones family in their lawsuit against Huguley for the right to try ivermectin when Jason was on a ventilator and expected to die.

"Dr. Bowden is a courageous warrior. While hospitals practiced their death protocol that killed hundreds of thousands, Dr. Bowden treated over 5,500 COVID patients and saved their lives," Parlato said Friday.

"She is being targeted and investigated by the TMB in an effort to convince the public that their killing protocol never happened. They are trying to discredit and silence her from speaking the truth and exposing their crimes. It won't work," said the patients' rights attorney.

Bowden told me that she told the medical board that the hospital "created unnecessary roadblocks in the process" in the back and forth in court about her getting temporary privileges to prescribe medications.

"A patient fighting for his life should never have to hire a lawyer and seek help outside of the hospital to try safe therapeutics if he or she wishes," Bowden said.

"Jason Jones was treated like a prisoner. His wishes were ignored by his physicians and the administrators at Texas Huguley hospital. His wife had every right to ask me to help. I am being punished for trying to save his life."

Texas Health Huguley's spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment about the TMB hearing.

Bowden denies that she treated Jones in the hospital which would require temporary privileges.

"I didn't march into the hospital and write orders on the chart for the nurses to carry out," Bowden said. "I gave a second opinion to his wife Erin. Jason's prognosis was very poor and hospice was being discussed. I felt ethically obligated to honor her request to try everything possible to save him, so prescribed ivermectin in addition to other medications."

Jason Jones was treated like a prisoner.

"The public is on to the fraud committed by hospitals and the medical establishment, including medical boards which have become a politicized arm of the establishment," said attorney Parlato. "The only thing Dr. Bowden is guilty of is saving lives, and our clients, Jason and Erin Jones, are truly grateful."

You'll remember the hospital called the police when a nurse came to administer the IVM to Jones that Bowden prescribed. In t his story, Erin Jones told me off the record at the time that she ended up secretly giving IVM to her husband in the hospital. Jones came off the ventilator and made a miraculous recovery.

Methodist Hospital has been publicly attacking Bowden since she came out in defense of the unvaccinated and taking IVM. While Bowden sent an email to her patients about only treating the unvaccinated, she didn't enforce it.

According to Bowden, Methodist reported her to the board because the hospital claimed the physician resigned her privileges while under investigation for an issue related to patient care. However, Bowden said that the information given to her by Methodist shows she was never technically under investigation.

"They were questioning my qualifications - whether or not I had the vaccine - and not anything to do with patient care," said Bowden. Methodist was the first hospital in the country to mandate the COVID vaccines for all its staff.

Methodist's spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on the Texas Medical Board hearing.

I will not plead guilty to crimes I didn't commit

"I also explained that I resigned because of the gut punch I received when Methodist reported my suspension to The Houston Chronicle and announced on Twitter that I was spreading dangerous misinformation," Bowden said of her testimony to the board.

"I had absolutely no interest in affiliating with them going forward."

You can read about Bowden's battles with Methodist over treating unvaccinated patients here and how her privileges were suspended and she resigned here.

Methodist denied that it refuses to treat unvaccinated patients.

Attorney Parlato explained that Bowden's fight against the Texas Medical Board has national importance for other doctors.

"Medical Boards across this country are investigating the real hero doctors who broke from the establishment and their killing protocol, and utilized lifesaving medication during the COVID pandemic," said Parlato.

"Dr. Bowden's case is one of the first in the nation, which makes this significant. If Dr. Bowden is successful in quashing this investigation, it serves as a precedent for all of our nation's medical boards."

Parlato said that if Bowden loses, it will set a legal precedent that doctors can't continue to prescribe medications using their own judgment.

"If the medical establishment can sanction a reputable doctor for prescribing medication such as ivermectin - which science has proven in 95 clinical studies is an effective, lifesaving drug - then the medical profession will be changed forever."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden Faces Texas Medical Board Over COVID Vaccine and Ivermectin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You were the first to read about Houston Dr. Mary Talley Bowden who declared she would only treat unvaccinated COVID patients because they were refused care by other doctors. Since Bowden went public in Nov. 2021, she has become a national spokeswoman against vaccine mandates and in favor of using ivermectin (IVM) to treat COVID.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1773983/v1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Oster E, Jack R, Halloran C, Schoof J, McLeod D. COVID-19 Mitigation Practices and COVID-19 Rates in Schools: Report on Data from Florida, New York and Massachusetts. medRxiv 2021: 2021.05.19.21257467.

2. Gettings J, Czarnik M, Morris E, et al. Mask Use and Ventilation Improvements to Reduce COVID-19 Incidence in Elementary Schools - Georgia, November 16-December 11, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70(21): 779-84.

3. Coma E, Català M, Méndez-Boo L, et al. Unravelling the Role of the Mandatory Use of Face Covering Masks for the Control of SARS-CoV-2 in Schools: A Quasi-Experimental Study Nested in a Population-Based Cohort in Catalonia (Spain). 2022.

4. Jehn M, Mac McCullough J, Dale AP, et al. Association between K-12 school mask policies and school-associated COVID-19 outbreaks-Maricopa and Pima Counties, Arizona, July-August 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2021; 70(39): 1372.

5. Boutzoukas AE, Zimmerman KO, Inkelas M, et al. School Masking Policies and Secondary SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. Pediatrics 2022.

6. Abaluck J, Kwong LH, Styczynski A, et al. Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh. Science 2021: eabi9069.

7. Kohn MA, Senyak J. Sample Size Calculators [website]. UCSF CTSI. 8 June 2022. Available at https://www.sample-size.net/ [Accessed 12 June 2022]

8. Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al-Ansary LA, Bawazeer GA, van Driel ML, Jones MA, Thorning S, Beller EM, Clark J, Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Conly JM. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD006207. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5.

9. Chandra A & Høeg TB, Revisiting Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements-United States, July 1-October 20 2021. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4118566 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4118566

10. Mulligan. CB. The Backwards Art of Slowing the Spread? Congregation Efficiencies during COVID-19. Becker Friedman Institute for Economics University of Chicago. 4/21. No. 2021-51

11. Boutzoukas et al. School Masking Policies and Secondary SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. Pediatrics June 2022; 149 (6): e2022056687. 10.1542/peds.2022-056687

12. Budzyn SE, Panaggio MJ, Parks SE, et al. Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements - United States, July 1-September 4, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1377-1378.

13. Jehn M, McCullough JM, Dale AP, et al. Association Between K-12 School Mask Policies and School-Associated COVID-19 Outbreaks - Maricopa and Pima Counties, Arizona, July-August 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1372-1373.

14. Høeg TB, Prasad V & Porter T. Contact tracing policy for masked students may be an important confounding variable. Accepted for publication. Pediatrics. Letter to the Editor. July 2022.

15. Personal communication via email with West Fargo Superintendent on 11/16/21.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Association between School Mask Mandates and SARS-CoV-2 Student Infections: Evidence from a Natural Experiment of Neighboring K-12 Districts in North Dakota

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is still considerable debate about whether mask mandates in the K-12 schools limit transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in children attending school. Randomized data about the effectiveness of mask mandates in children is still entirely lacking. Our study took advantage of a unique natural experiment...

# data[].attributes.body
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/02/25/how-powerful-captured-public-in-pandemic.aspx

# data[].attributes.body
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/a-world-wide-call-to-take-immediate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ri4cS9N55wQf/ https://rumble.com/v29rnt4-who-power-grab-why-it-concerns-us.html https://rumble.com/v29dj5g-world-council-for-health-general-assembly-76.html https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_DIV1-en.pdf
Ongoing negotiations regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) are currently scheduled from February 20, 2023 to February 24, 2023.

Negotiations regarding the proposed Pandemic Treaty are currently scheduled from February 27, 2023 to March 3, 2023.
NO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. NO VICTORIES HAVE BEEN WON. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO ASSUME ANYTHING. NOW IS THE TIME TO TAKE IMMEDIATE AND MASSIVE ACTION.
to watch (and share) a number of videos about the WHO.

to participate in our twice-daily ZOOM meetings to get answers to your questions, to share ideas and to get connected to others around the world.

Contact me (James Roguski) directly via Phone, Text, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp (+1 310-619-3055) or skype: james.roguski
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_7-en.pdf https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_6-en.pdf https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_5-en.pdf https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/e/e_wgihr-2.html https://indico.un.org/event/1003844/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/5hTfoenvFQvJ/ https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/e/e_inb-4.html https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2023/02/07/default-calendar/briefings-in-preparation-for-the-fourth-meeting-of-the-intergovernmental-negotiating-body
Once you have informed yourself regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and the proposed "Pandemic Treaty," the most important thing that you can do is spread the word and help raise the awareness of everyone on earth regarding these two separate, but inter-related issues.

Dear Public Servant:

You are hereby on notice regarding the enclosed information.

Do not ignore the information in this email.

First: The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations that are currently being negotiated by the World Health Organization are specifically designed to override national sovereignty and would remove respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people.

Second: This is NOT a conspiracy theory. This is EVIDENCE:

Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations:
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_5-en.pdf
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_6-en.pdf
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_7-en.pdf
Proposed Pandemic Treaty:

https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

Third: The following are excerpts from the official WHO IHRRC Final Report:

"The proposed amendments to these definitions could be understood as aiming to change the nature of these recommendations from non-binding to binding, and giving a binding effect to WHO recommendations and re quests as proposed in other articles." (page 26)

"This proposal also renders mandatory the temporary and standing recommendations addressed under Articles 15 and 16." (page 55)

"The proposed amendment to include a reference to temporary and standing recommendations seems to make application of these recommendations obligatory." ( page 67)
https://PreventGenocide2030.org/action-items
"This Committee is concerned that these proposals may unduly impinge on the sovereignty of States Parties and give binding effects to what are supposed to be recommendations." (page 68)

"The obligations set out in paragraph 1 of this proposed new Annex appear to be absolute and unconditional." (page 89)

Fourth: The proposed amendments clearly threaten to REMOVE the following text from Article 3: "full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons."

Fifth: The 75th World Health Assembly adopted amendments to 5 articles of the IHR that dramatically reduced the time that the 194 member nations will be allowed to reject future amendments. No signature from leaders nor approval by any Parliament or Senate was needed to enact those amendments into international law that is legally binding upon all nations. This happened in 2022 and it can clearly happen again.
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_ACONF7Rev1-en.pdf

Sixth: Both documents are designed to be "legally-binding."
https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations
https://www.who.int/news/item/07-12-2022-who-member-states-agree-to-develop-zero-draft-of-legally-binding-pandemic-accord-in-early-2023

Your prompt attention to this matter is of vital importance.
https://WorldCouncilForHealth.org/law-and-activism-committee/ https://app.videopeel.com/c/7bicv5j7
Time is of the essence.
https://freedomrising.info/canada-exits-the-who/ https://inhere.salsalabs.org/CanadaIHRAmendments https://inhere.salsalabs.org/canada-halt-vaccine-passports https://inhere.salsalabs.org/canada-must-exit-the-who-now/index.html https://inhere.salsalabs.org/save-canada-en-francais/index.html by James Roguski
TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION!

Click on the link below...
JamesRoguski.com JamesRoguski.substack.com/about JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
I encourage everyone to record their own video in order to express your opinions regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and the proposed "Pandemic treaty." You can certainly record your own video and upload it to YouTube, Rumble, Bitchute, Telegram, TicTok or any other video platform and post the link in the comment section below, or click on the link below...

Feel free to post the images below and/or create your own.

The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.

310-619-3055

All content is free to all readers.

All support is deeply appreciated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A WORLD-WIDE CALL TO TAKE IMMEDIATE AND MASSIVE ACTION

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ri4cS9N55wQf/ https://rumble.com/v29rnt4-who-power-grab-why-it-concerns-us.html https://rumble.com/v29dj5g-world-council-for-health-general-assembly-76.html https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_DIV1-en.pdf Ongoing negotiations regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) are currently scheduled from February 20, 2023 to February 24, 2023. Negotiations regarding the proposed Pandemic Treaty are currently scheduled from February 27, 2023 to March 3, 2023. NO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.

# data[].attributes.body
https://abirballan.substack.com/p/time-to-show-gratitude-to-the-doctors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NZDSOS are engaged in legal proceedings in three areas:

1. The right of doctors to abide by the Hippocratic oath

2. Challenge against the vaccination orders

3. Supporting members under investigation by MCNZ

Do you believe in what the NZDSOS DECLARATION stands for?

Learn more about the NZDSOS Doctors stories ...

See the Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights ( UNESCO, 2017)

"Demonstrate reflectiveness, personal awareness, the ability to seek and respond constructively to feedback and be willing to share your knowledge and learn from others." (p7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TIME TO SHOW GRATITUDE TO THE DOCTORS OF THE PANDEMIC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NZDSOS are engaged in legal proceedings in three areas: 1. The right of doctors to abide by the Hippocratic oath 2. Challenge against the vaccination orders 3. Supporting members under investigation by MCNZ Do you believe in what the NZDSOS DECLARATION stands for? Learn more about the NZDSOS Doctors stories ...

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/CKellyUAP/status/1628987393872396289

# data[].attributes.body
https://londonreal.tv/dr-robert-malone-mrna-vaccines-pfizer-5th-generation-warfare/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr Robert Malone - mRNA Vaccines, Pfizer & 5th Generation Warfare - London Real

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr Robert Malone returns to London Real. Dr Malone is an American physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ask Your State Legislators to watch "Anecdotals"

# data[].attributes.subject
Ask Your State Legislators to watch "Anecdotals"

# data[].attributes.body
https://advocacy.charityengine.net/Default.aspx?isid=1286

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please enter your info below to queue up your state legislators.

You will find a convenient email ready to send after you hit the take action button.

Note: Do not use apartment or unit numbers. If the system can not find your legislator please try using your full nine-digit zip code.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ask Your State Legislators to watch "Anecdotals," a film about COVID Vaccine Injury

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please enter your info below to queue up your state legislators. You will find a convenient email ready to send after you hit the take action button. Note: Do not use apartment or unit numbers. If the system can not find your legislator please try using your full nine-digit zip code.

# data[].attributes.headline
Washington Medical Board sanctioning Dr. Ryan Cole.

# data[].attributes.subject
Washington Medical Board sanctioning Dr. Ryan Cole.

# data[].attributes.body
NSY-This will not age well for the Washington Medical Board.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/jan/23/washington-medical-board-charges-dr-ryan-cole-with/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Ryan Cole of Idaho has until Jan. 30 to respond to charges from the Washington Medical Commission that he violated standards related to COVID-19 and patient care.

Cole, a pathologist whose specialty does not involve direct patient-care experience, has maintained that he didn't violate any standards while treating patients for COVID-19 via telehealth.

The statement of charges from the Washington Medical Commission says otherwise.

The Washington state medical board's decision to charge Cole follows a lengthy investigation. It opened the investigation in 2021, in response to multiple complaints about Cole's conduct in public forums about COVID-19; his disproven and unproven claims about the coronavirus vaccine; and his practice of seeing COVID-19 patients through a website that advertised a willingness to prescribe drugs that do not prevent or treat the disease.

"This has been purely Good Samaritan care for patients desperate for help that was not being offered elsewhere," he wrote in a letter to the Washington Medical Commission last year. "... I provided free medical care out of a real attempt to help those in need."

The Washington state board's charging statement - provided to the Idaho Capital Sun on Wednesday - is the culmination of one of two investigations the commission has opened regarding Cole's license.

The other case is related to his misdiagnosis of a patient with cancer. In a response to the board in that case, Cole argued that it was not a misdiagnosis but a difference of opinion. That investigation has been forwarded on to the board for possible disciplinary action, according to records obtained by the Sun this month.

The Idaho Board of Medicine has also received complaints about Cole's practice as a patient care provider and about his public statements regarding COVID-19 treatments, preventions and vaccines. An analysis of documents and dates showed that the Idaho Board of Medicine made the decision not to investigate those complaints before it had reviewed any telehealth patient records.

The Washington board chose to investigate, using patient records and recordings of Cole's public statements. In its statement of charges, the board said Cole's public presentations included "numerous false and misleading statements" about:

* The COVID-19 pandemic.

* COVID-19 vaccines.

* The use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, despite clinical trials showing it to be ineffective, and global health authorities and the drug's own manufacturer warning against its use for COVID-19.

* The effectiveness of masks.

The board said those statements "were harmful and dangerous to individual patients, generated mistrust in the medical profession and in public health, and had a wide-spread negative impact on the health and well-being of our communities."

Cole is the only licensed physician on the Central District Health board, which directs Idaho's largest regional public health department.

The Idaho Capital Sun has contacted Cole, his attorneys and his wife, Kelli Cole, who handles some marketing and business aspects of his laboratory, at least eight times since April 2022. They could not be reached for comment.

Board: Cole didn't see patients, used text messages, prescribed ivermectin

Cole "also provided negligent care" to four Washington patients, according to the Washington board's statement of charges. He prescribed drugs "that are not indicated for a COVID-19 infection, failed to properly document adequate justification for the treatment in the medical record, failed to take a history or perform a physical examination, and failed to obtain appropriate informed consent," it said.

All four patients described in the board's statement sought care from Cole in June and July 2021.

Cole prescribed ivermectin to the first patient, who had COVID-19. When the patient's pharmacy wouldn't fill the prescription as it was written, Cole sent in a lower dose prescription to another pharmacy and told the patient to "take 7 pills today and tomorrow even though the bottle says 4. Day 3 take the rest. Then refill. Take 7 7 6 again," the board's statement says, quoting medical records.

To a second patient who did not have COVID-19 at the time, Cole prescribed weekly doses of ivermectin for up to three months. He also recommended daily supplements "and to double her dose of ivermectin if she tested positive for COVID-19," the board statement said. The patient's age and obesity level put her at high risk of hospitalization, but Cole did not inform her of that, the statement said.

To a third patient, Cole prescribed ivermectin and recommended an assortment of supplements. The patient did not currently have COVID-19 and told Cole "she had had energy issues since experiencing flu-like symptoms in February 2020 and feeling like she was having a heart attack." Cole assumed she had long COVID and didn't ask about her heart symptoms, the statement said. The patient later tried to follow up with Cole but "he never responded," according to the board's statement.

To a fourth patient who did have COVID-19, Cole prescribed ivermectin and steroid medications without seeing or examining the patient first, the board document says. But he failed to tell the patient about possible side effects of steroid treatments and "also did not provide timely follow-up care when requested by (the patient)," the board said.

Finally, the board alleges Cole "also provided inadequate opportunity for follow-up care, treated patients beyond his competency level, and did not advise patients about standard treatment guidelines and preventative measures."

The board's statement of charges revealed that Cole used a telehealth platform "that relied on instant message chat instead of a phone call or video." That kind of patient interaction "does not comply with the standard

Cole has been licensed by the Washington state medical board since 2007.

He is currently licensed by the Idaho Board of Medicine as well as medical boards in several other states. He is the CEO of Cole Diagnostics, a laboratory in Garden City.

During the first two years of the pandemic, Cole Diagnostics received a windfall of COVID-19 testing revenues and pandemic aid, as the Sun has previously reported.

The ability to run COVID-19 tests, alone, doubled the laboratory's income from Medicaid and Medicare from what it had been in prior years.

Cole's business also received grants and forgiven loans from state and federal programs that were aimed at helping ease financial hardships and increased burdens on health care providers due to the pandemic. of care for conducting a physical examination of a patient," the board said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Washington medical board charges Dr. Ryan Cole with COVID-19 related violations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Ryan Cole of Idaho has until Jan. 30 to respond to charges from the Washington Medical Commission that he violated standards related to COVID-19 and patient care. Cole, a pathologist whose specialty does not involve direct patient-care experience, has maintained that he didn't violate any standards while treating patients for COVID-19 via telehealth.

# data[].attributes.body
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/a-world-wide-call-to-take-immediate

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/nunisasyu/4-red-pill-master-s-level-pack-49y79pdycac5kk7h

# data[].attributes.body
The last section,  #4. The Red Pill Master's Pack is now live but still in development.

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1627779401059389453

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Dr. Mike Yeadon: NOW Is the Time to Wake up the World

"I can't reach beyond you, whoever's listening out there. I can't reach the ten people in your family, the 20 people in your community. I will never reach them. The main media will never tell them the truth. It's you!"

"I… https://t.co/YxdCzbiKIw

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Dr. Mike Yeadon: NOW Is the Time to Wake up the World

"I can't reach beyond you, whoever's listening out there. I can't reach the ten people in your family, the 20 people in your community. I will never reach them. The main media will never tell them the truth. It's you!"

"I… https://t.co/YxdCzbiKIw https://t.co/r5nQjskHJt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Dr. Mike Yeadon: NOW Is the Time to Wake up the World

"I can't reach beyond you, whoever's listening out there. I can't reach the ten people in your family, the 20 people in your community. I will never reach them. The main media will never tell them the truth. It's you!"

"I… https://t.co/YxdCzbiKIw pic.twitter.com/r5nQjskHJt
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 20, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Dr. Mike Yeadon: NOW Is the Time to Wake up the World

"I can't reach beyond you, whoever's listening out there. I can't reach the ten people in your family, the 20 people in your community. I will never reach them. The main media will never tell them the truth. It's you!"

"I… https://t.co/YxdCzbiKIw https://t.co/r5nQjskHJt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Dr. Mike Yeadon: NOW Is the Time to Wake up the World

"I can't reach beyond you, whoever's listening out there. I can't reach the ten people in your family, the 20 people in your community. I will never reach them. The main media will never tell them the truth. It's you!"

"I… https://t.co/YxdCzbiKIw https://t.co/r5nQjskHJt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Dr. Mike Yeadon: NOW Is the Time to Wake up the World

"I can't reach beyond you, whoever's listening out there. I can't reach the ten people in your family, the 20 people in your community. I will never reach them. The main media will never tell them the truth. It's you!"

"I… https://t.co/YxdCzbiKIw

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1627714663747026962

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
The ‘vaccines’ are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow, fetus, causing all sorts of harm in the body. CDC, FDA misinformation causing death and injury. @P_McCulloughMD @drcole12 🔥

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
The ‘vaccines’ are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow, fetus, causing all sorts of harm in the body. CDC, FDA misinformation causing death and injury. @P_McCulloughMD @drcole12 🔥 https://t.co/TRDmJnSdAv

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
The ‘vaccines’ are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow, fetus, causing all sorts of harm in the body. CDC, FDA misinformation causing death and injury. @P_McCulloughMD @drcole12 🔥 pic.twitter.com/TRDmJnSdAv
— Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis (@DrLoupis) February 20, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
The ‘vaccines’ are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow, fetus, causing all sorts of harm in the body. CDC, FDA misinformation causing death and injury. @P_McCulloughMD @drcole12 🔥 https://t.co/TRDmJnSdAv

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
The ‘vaccines’ are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow, fetus, causing all sorts of harm in the body. CDC, FDA misinformation causing death and injury. @P_McCulloughMD @drcole12 🔥 https://t.co/TRDmJnSdAv

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
The ‘vaccines’ are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow, fetus, causing all sorts of harm in the body. CDC, FDA misinformation causing death and injury. @P_McCulloughMD @drcole12 🔥

# data[].attributes.body
https://preventgenocide2030.org/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The declaration of the COVID-19 "pandemic" ushered in a level of assault on our freedoms that has never before been seen in the modern world. Overt attacks on the ability to speak openly, associate freely, and on bodily autonomy have been incessant and oppressive. Violations of the Nuremberg Code have run rampant through coercion, propaganda, and the sowing of dissent among the free people. At the forefront of these assaults are government officials, their highly paid medical representatives, and the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization is now preparing to destroy individual and national sovereignties and establish itself as a global medical dictatorship. We are committed to ending their power grab by compelling our governments to immediately leave the WHO.

We are many and they are few and there is strength in numbers! Citizens of all nations, please join with us in the fight for our lives!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The declaration of the COVID-19 "pandemic" ushered in a level of assault on our freedoms that has never before been seen in the modern world. Overt attacks on the ability to speak openly, associate freely, and on bodily autonomy have been incessant and oppressive.

# data[].attributes.body
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/why-cant-we-talk-about-it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's stunning how the entire world is only being told one side of the narrative by the mainstream media. While we can't change that, what we can do is to make everyone aware that nobody on the pro-vaccine side will engage in an open, public civil discussion or debate on the relevant issues. I intend to do just that through non-stop advertising all over the world.

I am writing this from Auckland Airport in New Zealand awaiting my flight back to San Francisco. I was just informed that my attempt to have a discussion about COVID policies with Michael Laws on The Platform was denied. The message I received read as follows, "He isn't interested in having his views tested by yours."

So effectively, I've been "de-platformed" by The Platform which bills itself as "New Zealand's only independent media site giving you unbiased coverage, commentary, and opinion and the chance to have your say." Wow. That's really bad.

This is ridiculous. Enough is enough.

This isn't about me. Everyone on our side of the narrative is denied an opportunity for an open, public discussion about any issues regarding the COVID response including mandates, masking, vaccines, early treatment, lockdowns, VAERS reporting rates that are off the charts, safety signals deliberately being ignored, trust in public health officials such as ACIP committee chair Grace Lee who doesn't want to see the Israeli safety data, etc.

It's time for a new approach. I want to make sure that everyone realizes two things:

1. That the mainstream media is only considering and telling one side of the narrative which means that they are essentially involved in propaganda rather than news.

2. That NOBODY pushing the narrative is willing to be challenged about their beliefs.

So you might start to see ads in newspapers, radio, TV, online, and on billboards with headlines like:

Why can't we talk about it?

Why doesn't anyone on their side want to talk about it?

Why is it forbidden to talk about it?

Why are physicians threatened with loss of their jobs if they talk about it?

Why is it taboo to talk about it?

Why can't we have a civil discussion to resolve our differences about it?

Why are <they> so afraid to talk about it? where <hey> is replaced by local, state, federal lawmakers, government organizations (CDC, NIH, FDA, ...), local, state, federal health officials, professional organizations (AMA, CMA, IDSA, etc), infectious disease experts, medical schools, etc.

These ads will be targeted sometimes to organization other times to individuals in a position of power or influence such as a member of Congress or a even a talk show host like Michael Laws who doesn't seem to practice what he preaches about free speech.

We'll start with an ad in the Washington Post displaying our letter to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky offering to setting who is telling misinformation by coming to the debate table. If she refuses, we will launch a massive ad campaign on radio, TV, newspapers, billboards, and online asking the question:

"Why is the CDC so afraid to be challenged on their policies?" and suggesting that misinformation costs lives and that censorship has not worked, and that traditionally differences of opinion in America have been settled by dialog. I'll refer to the Vinay Prasad op-ed.

We'll send it also to all the CDC employees as well.

I've invited the following people to represent our side of the vaccine debate. I don't expect everyone to accept my invitation or be available for all discussions (should they ever happen). Here's the initial list which comprises a mixture of people who are experts on our side of the story (in no particular order):

Notes:

1. (a) means accepted, (d) means declined.

2. Over half of these people accepted within minutes of my sending the invitation.

3. Robert Malone isn't listed because he doesn't like debates.

4. Not everyone on the list agrees with everyone on every one of the topics listed below. In general, they were picked because they are experts in certain key aspects of the COVID response.

It's interesting to note that the people on the other side of the narrative have had nearly two years to accept the challenge or issue their own challenge. They've done neither. My hypothesis is that the reason is as simple as this:

Thousands of issues regarding the worldwide government COVID response including, but not limited to the following items, should be discussed but there is silence from the other side. This is just a list off the top of my head. Ask your friends if there is an item or two from this list that they are willing to discuss. Don't be surprised if they are unable to talk about any of the items.

1. Refusing to see credible safety studies: Why are public health officials ignoring credible safety data that proves that the COVID vaccines cause side effects that are serious and that do not resolve? The CDC was offered an opportunity to see the Israeli safety data from the leaked video which shows the vaccines are unsafe. The offer was sent to nearly 300 people at the CDC who work in vaccine safety. ACIP chair Grace Lee refused to see the adverse safety data as well. How do you defend her decision to ignore the data? The video was authenticated by a Reuters fact check. Why did the Israeli Ministry of Health refused to talk about it? Why wasn't anyone fired? Why was there no investigation about the coverup? Why did the Israeli mainstream media agree to not writing about it. Neil Oliver covered it on , the only on-air anchor to talk about it in the world. Nobody in the US mainstream media wanted to see the safety data either. Isn't it time for the CDC and mainstream media to admit they are both propaganda organizations and that protecting the public is not even close to being a top priority?

2. CDC is ignoring the VAERS death safety signal. The death safety signal triggered in VAERS just a month after the vaccines were rolled out. The CDC said nothing despite the fact that it was their own data and their own safety signal monitoring algorithm! I personally noticed that the death safety signal triggered in VAERS, it was verified by 3 independent experts, but the CDC ignored it even after it was expressly brought to the attention of senior CDC staff. Where is the calculation proving it didn't trigger and why can't we see it? Why was Dr. George Fareed who wrote the CDC and asked about this gaslighted by the CDC and not shown the calculation? Doesn't this show the safety signals are being ignored? Also, isn't using PRR a huge mistake in the CDC formula? A vaccine that generates huge numbers of adverse events is considered "safe" using this formula and it is ANDed with other conditions. Is this really the best way to assess safety of a vaccine? The death safety signal triggered a month after the shots rolled out, so the CDC has been ignoring it for more than 2 years now and saying absolutely nothing.

3. If this analysis of all-cause mortality isn't right, then how come nobody is willing to supply the correct version? It shows that by May 2021 (when they stopped publishing the data by vaccination status, that every single age cohort had higher all-cause mortality if they were vaccinated. How do you explain that? If you think it is wrong, why are you not showing us the correct analysis?

4. UK excess deaths: What is causing the 650,000 excess deaths in the UK (as reported by the BBC)? It's the worst in 50 years. It can't be COVID since everyone is vaccinated and the vaccine works and Omicron is VERY mild. The article claims "pandemic effects on health and NHS pressures" are among the leading explanations, but the Devil's advocate article shows this isn't correlated and the argument was hand-waving with NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT. How did they rule out the vaccine? They did so by not looking at the graph, for sure! So if the graph above can't be attacked (by showing us how they got it wrong and the correct graph), then we have our answer as to what is causing the excess death.

5. If Norman Fenton/Martin Neil's The Devil's Advocate: An Exploratory Analysis of 2022 Excess Mortality article is wrong , how come nobody has pointed out the error and showed us the correct analysis? It shows that countries with higher vaccination rates have higher excess mortality and points out all the other explanations don't fit.

6. The death safety signal triggered in VAERS triggered just one month after the vaccines rolled out. The CDC has never told the public this. It's now been two years! They also lied to the public about ischemic stroke; they said it only appeared in VSD and not VAERS. So what does the medical community do when the CDC is caught in a lie like this? They say nothing. Is that how science works? You conceal all the safety signals and that is OK? Whenever I bring this subject up with a pro-vaxxer, they change the topic. Instantly.

7. There is no end-to-end quality control. Zero. There was no informed consent because nobody knows what is in the vials. Former FDA #3 person, David Gortler, reveals that there is no end-to-end testing for the vaccines. So the amount of drug, the integrity of the mRNA, and the level of contaminants in the vaccine is completely unknown because nobody is measuring it on a regular basis. In addition, EMA documents admitted that over 25M doses given to people in US and Europe were not GMP. This is a minimum number of doses; the real number is likely much more, but nobody knows how large it is. Lab rats are treated better than this. People became magnetic because early vials had magnetic material contaminants. Duh. They were not making this stuff up.

8. VAERS excess deaths. There are over 15,000 excess deaths reported for the COVID vaccines. If these deaths were not caused by the vaccine, then what caused them? Also, the minimum underreporting factor is at least 30 and more likely 41 or more. This is over 500,000 excess deaths. Shouldn't that be a stopping condition? If not, how many people have to die before we take these vaccines off the market? How many children have to die before we take these vaccines off the market? How many people have to die or be disabled before we stop mandating these vaccines for the US military? Why was no stopping condition ever defined? What should the stopping condition be? There are only 3 possible ways the numbers in VAERS can be wrong: gaming, overreporting, the vaccine is extremely dangerous. There is no evidence anywhere of the first two. In fact, all the evidence we have shows gaming is tiny and that the propensity to report is the same this year as in other years. So how do you explain the dramatic uptick in all countries of the world which monitor safety events? For more on VAERS, please see the questions in this article. While you could argue correlation isn't causation, if it isn't the vax, you have to ask what else meets this criteria:

1. Never been seen before

2. Deployed at start of 2021

3. Injected into you

4. Able to kill people in MULTIPLE different ways

5. Deployed into massive numbers of people all over the US at the same time

6. Rates of reports coincide with number of people being vaccinated

9. Why can't anyone explain how these 14 kids died after getting vaccinated? Two of the 14 died from pulmonary embolism. Two died from bleeding in the brain. In the entire 32-year history of the VAERS system, there hasn't been a single death from intracranial hemorrhage. Why didn't the CDC think this was abnormal? In fact, in one case, the bleeding developed within 24 hours of the COVID shot. Bad luck?

10. Wait a second... isn't the vaccine supposed to make it LESS likely I get COVID? The vaccine is making it more likely I'll get COVID if I get vaccinated. Tell me again why we want more people to get COVID? I must be missing something.

11. Risk benefit of the vaccines vs. early treatment: Early treatment protocols such as the Fareed-Tyson protocol are arguably over 99% effective in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID; they've treated over 15,000 patients without any hospitalization or death. The risk of death from these early treatment protocols is vanishingly small. In comparison, any hospitalization and death benefits from COVID vaccination are not clear at all (if there is a clear benefit, where are the repeatable studies showing the same level of risk reductions in every study? Have you noticed they NEVER quantify the hospitalization and death benefit reductions?) and there is a clear significant risk of death as we see from the VAERS data, the German FOIA data, physician reports, and the Schwab paper. Why we would ever even consider a novel vaccine which has not been thoroughly tested with unknown long-term consequences as a viable option is unthinkable. What are we missing? Science is about repeatability. If the vaccine hospitalization and deaths benefits are real, we should see the same numbers repeatedly. We don't. Nobody even talks about any of the numbers, have you noticed? They never give a number. Why not? There is a "consensus" number of a 50% benefit that the UK published (see page 14) for hospitalization and death for all three vaccines. This was a UK expert panel. Even if that was correct, it simply pales in comparison to the early treatment numbers (i.e., a factor of 2 vs. 100).

12. The answer is in the morgue. John Beaudoin pointed out we have all the data we need at this point and refers to Exhibit F. The data in Massachusetts is compelling: deaths went from respiratory to cardiac when the vaccines rolled out.

13. Black swan event for top medical officer. How do you explain this: the former Australian Medical Association (AMA) president has broken her silence about the "devastating" experience - emerging as the most prominent public health figure in the country to speak up about the taboo subject. Why is she breaking her silence? Is this the way medicine works today that you look the other way when there are injuries? But not only was she vaccine injured but so was her partner. "Former federal MP Dr Kerryn Phelps has revealed she and her wife both suffered serious and ongoing injures from Covid vaccines, while suggesting the true rate of adverse events is far higher than acknowledged due to underreporting and "threats" from medical regulators." Is she lying? The chance of this happening is near zero if the vaccines are as safe as claimed.

14. UK Consultant Surgeon calls for halt to Covid injections and speaks out against medical censorship. Is he a misinformation spreader too?

15. The Herve Seligmann, Spiro Pantazatos, David Wiseman analysis shows ACM increases for the boosters. See this Dr. Drew video at 59:00 mark. Is there a more credible study showing the reverse?

16. Did she make a mistake? Shouldn't this be troubling? If not, why not? As we sit here today, through November 25, 2022, the CDC VAERS system reports 15,508 deaths in the United States from COVID-19 vaccination, 22% of them within 96 hours of vaccination. There were 15,505 disabled Americans, 9,266 with heart damage, and 356,269 doctor visits, urgent care, or hospitalizations attributed to vaccine side effects. Is this what we should expect from a safe vaccine? On what basis can you conclude that?

17. Determining causality. If the vaccine didn't cause the events reported in the VAERS system, then what did? The symptoms caused by the vaccines satisfy all the Bradford-Hill causality criteria. So why shouldn't we believe it? And how could the vaccine phase 3 clinical trials have missed the myocarditis link? When you have 1 in every 29 teenage boys developing myopericarditis, subclinical myocarditis, or pericarditis after the second dose (see Table 2 of the Thailand prospective study (published in the peer-reviewed literature) which looked at 301 teens between 13-18 years old), that's a huge effect! How was it missed? And we know the vaccine does CAUSE serious adverse events because this was proven by the data collected by the scientific panel appointed by the Israeli Ministry of Health. Even after these adverse events were revealed, nobody in the world was able to find a safety signal for these known symptoms. How is that possible? Is our worldwide medical community really that lame that after we tell them the answer, they still can't find a safety signal? Isn't it time the medical community leveled with the people of the world and admitted that their ability to determine causality and detect safety signals is abysmal? Why didn't anyone else in the world do vaccine safety monitoring using the techniques deployed by the Israeli panel where they looked at the symptoms of people who were re-challenged with multiple doses of the vaccine? Also, a free public heart screening of 12-25 year-old in Southern California found 2% with heart issues. A recent French study shows incidence of post-vaccine myocardial injury is 2.8% vs. 0.0035% myocarditis in retrospective studies. Can you explain how that can happen with such a safe vaccine. In particular, what is the mechanism of action of the damage and how do you KNOW it is limited to just the heart? Put it this way: 28,000 cases per million post vaccine vs. 35 cases per million background. That's an 800X increase. So is that what they mean by "slightly elevated" risk? What would be a "significantly" elevated risk then? This paper says rate is 40 per million from infection compared to 2.8 per hundred from the vaccine in the Swiss paper which is 700 times higher. Plus cardiologists are all reporting more myocarditis post-vax than post-infection.

18. Shouldn't 25% of the full 10.1M being unable to continue normal activities or miss work/school suggest that the vaccine is causing an abnormal number of problems? Why did the CDC only report out the first week number for people who needed medical care? If the vaccine is safe, the % seeking medical care in any given week should be nearly identical. It isn't. It's not even close to flat. Why was this alarming statistic not disclosed? If it wasn't the vaccine causing this, what was the cause? Note, the numbers listed below are NOT cumulative.

19. Professor Fukushima's public rebuke. Japanese infectious disease Professor Masanori Fukushima publicly rebuked the Japanese Ministry of Health for not investigating the harms caused by the vaccine. His remarks are scathing. If the vaccine is so safe and effective, why would he do this? Was anything he said false?

20. Sudden death tied to the vaccine by respected German researchers: See this article on Peter McCullough's substack published on December 4 entitled Found Dead at Home after COVID-19 Vaccination: 71% of a random sample of people who died unexpectedly within 20 days of the vaccine and underwent an autopsy to determine the cause of death, died of a primary symptom that is caused by the vaccine. In the paper, German scientists conclusively linked the COVID vaccine and sudden death for the first time. This is a direct quote: "Our findings establish the histological phenotype of lethal vaccination-associated myocarditis." There were 35 patients; 10 were excluded as having died from pre-existing conditions, leaving 25 people. Of the 25, the study found 5 which likely died exclusively from myocarditis and no other case. So they only examined the histopathology of five bodies (3 female, 2 male) who met the criteria of myocarditis and had no other likely cause of death because they were looking to assess whether the vaccine caused myocarditis leading to sudden unexpected death. They basically were looking for the "cleanest" proof of death, but it's likely that all 71% of the cases (25 out of 35) died from the vaccine, it's just harder to "prove" that. They pointed out that one of the 5 they investigated had herpes, but nobody ever dies from herpes so they left that patient in. They found heart damage consistent with vaccine-induced myocarditis in all 5 cases. More interestingly is the death timing: "All [five] persons died within the first week following vaccination ( mean 2.5 days, median 2 days)." (see Table 2 in the Schwab paper for the death timing of each case). If it was not related to the shot, it wouldn't be clustered so close to the shot.

"During the last 20 years of autopsy service at Heidelberg University Hospital we did not observe comparable myocardial inflammatory infiltration."

"Based on the autopsy findings and all available data, no other cause of death except (epi-)myocarditis was identified in any of the cases presented here. Hence, myocarditis has to be considered the likely cause of death."

"In three cases, the overall autopsy findings, in particular presence of (epi-)myocarditis in combination with the absence of other plausible causes of death (especially pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, severe brain infarction or bleeding, other cardiac disease), together with the close temporal association with the vaccination event lead to the conclusion that vaccination was the likely cause of (epi-)myocarditis and that this cardiac affection was the cause of sudden death."

Schwab was the first author but Peter Schirmacher was the senior author on the paper. They pointed out that "It has to be emphasized, that a comparable (epi-)myocardial infiltration was neither found in any of the other 20 autopsies performed on bodies found dead within 20 days following an anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination." I recognized Schirmacher instantly; he is internationally recognized as one of the world's top pathologists and was also one of the first pathologists to link the vaccines and deaths and tell the world about it. I was told that they threatened to kill his family so he went undercover which is why he was completely unreachable when I tried to contact him in August 2021). See this news story on the vaccine-related COVID deaths and this FOX News segment featuring Peter McCullough. This is the consistent with the research described by Dr. Ryan Cole here. More than a year ago, on August 1, 2021, Peter Schirmacher looked at 40 deaths within 2 weeks after vaccination and determined that 30% to 40% of the deaths could be linked to the vaccine. The question everyone should be asking is why is this research only now appearing two years after the vaccine roll out? Why are no autopsies being done in the US? Why is nobody in the US publishing similar research? Watch this video from John Campbell entitled Myocarditis German evidence who explains the significance of this important paper published by top pathologist in a top German cardiology journal. Here is Dr. Been's video about the Schwab paper. Here is Dr. Moran's video about the Schwab paper which in the first 5 minutes talks in detail about the prospective Thailand study where 7 out of 202 males developed myocarditis or pericarditis within just two weeks after their second dose of the vaccine. This is far greater than the risk of myocarditis from COVID ( which creates NO added risk per this large-scale Israeli study of 196,992 unvaccinated adults after Covid infection). A rate of 3.5% of teenage males (which is 1 in every 29 teenage males) being diagnosed with myocarditis post-vaccine is a disaster. If the vaccine isn't causing this, what is? This cannot be simply "bad luck" that these kids all developed spontaneous myocarditis; the rate is too high and the timing is suspicious. The precautionary principle of medicine requires us to halt the vaccine for kids, but the US ignored it, no further research is being done. In a move contrary to medical evidence, Yale University is now requiring the vaccine for all undergraduate students including the latest boosters. The question for the reader is whether you have a more likely explanation for these deaths than vaccine induced? Also, did you notice that throughout the video (such as at 12:10), Campbell has to expressly point out what he is "allowed" to talk about? Have you ever wondered what he would say if his speech wasn't muzzled? Don't people have a right to know that? Or is the public better off when clinicians' speech is muzzled? Finally, look at all the comments on the video. In particular, this comment tells you all you need to know:

21. DMED data: The DMED data shows something is drastically affecting the health of our soldiers. If it isn't the vaccine, what is it and why isn't anyone talking about it (or even curious about the cause)? See 30:39 in the Johnson hearing

22. Should misinformation be a crime? Francis Collins says misinformation is responsible for the deaths of 300,000 people. He wants misinformation to be a crime. What do you think of this idea? How long do you think they should be put in jail for? Doesn't this mean long jail sentences for Biden, Jha, Collins, Fauci, Walensky, and most of the the doctors in America?

23. Can you debunk Denis Rancourt's evidence showing when the government intervenes, deaths go up? Here's the video.

24. Birth rates: Read this article about the Missing Babies of Europe showing a massive sudden decline in birth rates that happened EXACTLY 9 months after the vaccine rollout. Does anyone care? If the birth rates dropped to zero, does anyone care? How low do the birthrates have to go before anyone says anything? . Why are birth rates down worldwide by substantial numbers? Why is Dr. James Thorp seeing an "off-the-charts" rise in sudden fetal death and adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as fetal malformation and even fetal cardiac arrest, among his patients? He has said, "Miscarriage has increased by a massive number... Fetal malformation...fetal cardiac abnormalities... fetal cardiac arrhythmias...fetal cardiac arrest...severe placental problems causing inter-uterine growth restrictions (unable to grow fetuses)... [it's] a significant increase, and this is all compared with appropriate controls (like the influenza vaccine)... it's way off the charts." Is he lying? Will anyone challenge his patient data?

25. Excuses for avoiding debate on these topics don't make any sense. UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad co-authored an op-ed two years ago bemoaning the lack of debate. Nothing has changed. It doesn't matter how credentialed the person asking for the debate is: nobody in a position of authority or influence who is pro-narrative will agree to be challenged. Not a single one. I even offered members of the CDC and FDA outside committees to sit down with me for a few hours to answer some questions. I offered $1M to compensate them for their time. No takers. I still don't know why. So even the reason for refusing debate is a secret!

26. Is it Turtles All the Way Down? The book, Turtles all the way down: Vaccine science and myth, paints a troubling portrait of vaccines as gaming the approval process to avoid being tested head to head against a placebo. Despite a $1,000 reward for errors, nobody has found an error in the book (whereas for the Fauci book, many errors were found). Is there an error in the book and where is it? If there are no errors, then why shouldn't we believe the conclusions, that the vaccines have not been properly tested for safety.

27. No quality control. There is no quality control on the product delivered to the pharmacies. Nobody is taking samples of the vaccine just before it would be normally injected into someone and having it analyzed. This was revealed at the Johnson hearing by an FDA whistleblower. We basically do NOT want to know what is in the shots or the integrity of the mRNA at the point of delivery. That's bad enough, but the fact that nobody in the mainstream medical community is speaking out about this is appalling. Here's proof there is a serious quality problem that nobody can deny and that t he health officials knew it and choose to ignore it. It seems it isn't about protecting the public, but protecting the manufacturer, doesn't it?

28. Vaccine side effects are being caused by what again? There are now over 2,000 papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature documenting vaccine side effects, yet the NIH still claims there is no association between the vaccine and these injuries. Why are so many people injured and disabled and dead after being vaccinated? Why are we so blind that the vaccine injured have to make their own videos to be heard? In particular, former top ICU nurse Marsha Gee at UCSD, developed 78 unusual symptoms common to other vaccine victims including bleeding behind her eyes. OK, so if the vaccine didn't cause all these symptoms, then what did? You can't really expect us to believe she got unlucky and simply developed 78 symptoms all of a sudden for no reason. How do you explain how all these people developed so many symptoms common to the vaccine injured shortly after getting the vaccine? Were they all unlucky? My reach for this survey was very small and that the number of severely vaccine injured is 100,000 or more. The data from V-safe showed that nearly 8% of people had to seek medical care post-vaccination which translates into 20M people adversely affected. Many people never realize they've been injured by the vaccine because their doctors tell them it wasn't related to the vaccine. Watch this 4 minute clip describing how people ignore vaccine injuries. This is exactly how the vaccine injured feel.

29. Mayors under 60 are dropping dead unexpectedly. Why? 16 German and Austrian Mayors Under 60 Are 'Suddenly and Unexpectedly' Dropping Dead. If it isn't the vaccine, what is causing this? More importantly, why aren't the government officials who are still alive interested at all in finding out why their peers are dying? That makes no sense! The article notes the following: Are the numbers of the Mayor's unexpectedly dying the same as in the past? Perhaps it could be? But shouldn't the authorities compare previous statistics and share them with the public? Looking the other way or downplaying the number of unexpected deaths of younger and seemingly healthy Mayors only adds to people's fears. Furthermore, it is creating even more rumors and "conspiracies." If there is, in fact, a problem, it should be of concern to the government. After all, it's government officials who are dropping dead in numbers.

30. Why is only one state doing COVID vaccine safety studies? Florida found the government was lying about the safety of the vaccines. Shouldn't other states' health officials do their own studies? Florida Surgeon General was asked by Fox News why Florida was the only state to find that the COVID vaccine was more dangerous than what the CDC has claimed. He replied, "Because we were the only ones who looked." Why aren't any other state public health officials doing their own checks?

31. The Thailand study on heart damage in young adults showed the vaccines should be stopped for young adults. Why aren't easy to execute before/after safety studies being done? Watch the first 5 minutes of this excellent video by Dr. Moran on the Thailand study. One of the top comments to the video says, "As nurse of 30 years, I have never known anyone personally to have myocarditis. Since the roll out, I now personally know 7 young people between the ages of 20 and 35! Coincidence? I think not. Sick." Why can Thailand do a study of cardiac biomarkers before/after the vaccine and find that nearly 30% of kids showed measurable cardiac damage and 3.5% of the teenage boys developed myocarditis or pericarditis after the shot, yet other countries cannot? Why is nobody in the world following up on this research to replicate it in larger numbers so we can see what the rate in females is. The drug companies, the FDA, CDC, and NIH are all ignoring this highly acclaimed study. Shouldn't the mainstream press be letting parents know about the true rate of cardiac injury? Why aren't they? Why isn't a study like this allowed to be done in the US? Is it unethical to ask if the government is telling the truth? Why didn't the FDA require before/after tests to confirm or deny the Thailand result? Also, is 30% of kids sustaining cardiac damage and 3.5% of boys developing myocarditis considered "rare" by the CDC? Why isn't the CDC commenting on this study or repeating it? More importantly, why are they not notifying parents of the 3.5% risk of myocarditis (which we now know can be fatal as shown in the Schwab paper) and the nearly 30% risk of cardiac injury? Is the public better served by not knowing the risks? From the study: "Myopericarditis was confirmed in one patient after vaccination. Two patients had suspected pericarditis and four patients had suspected subclinical myocarditis." So 1 in 301 patients had confirmed myocarditis. In the military, the doctors are seeing rates of myocarditis of 3% or more. So the Thailand study wasn't just bad luck.

32. Is Paul Offit misinformed about the vaccines? Paul Offit says the new bivalent booster provides no protection. The FDA panel says it does. They can't both be right. Can you explain precisely how Offit's argument (that there is no data that additional boosters significantly lower the risk of hospitalization and death) is wrong. Where is the efficacy data and why doesn't Offit know about it? If he is not competent, then why is he on the committee?

33. Strange clots reported by embalmers show up in as many as 90% of vaccinated people who die: Why aren't any medical professionals interested in seeing the evidence of vaccine injury firsthand? In a survey of 126 embalmers, 27% of embalmers report seeing these telltale blood clots in 40% or more of their cases! Nobody is willing to take Dr. Ryan Cole up on his invitation to examine the strange clots reported by the embalmers in the movie Died Suddenly. This can't be "misinformation" because there is a Dr. Drew episode on YouTube discussing these clots (entitled "Foot-Long Blood Clots" From mRNA, Says Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole w/ Dr Kelly Victory - Ask Dr. Drew) and it has been live for 8 days now and not censored and it has over 471,000 views. Was there any misinformation in that video that you'd like to debate with Dr. Cole or Dr. Victory? There was also a video ( Could These Mysterious Clots be the Cause of Death?) where Dr. Chris Martenson explains how it is physically impossible for these clots to be formed post-mortem. Or watch this Epoch Times interview of Dr. Cole where he explains again that "the cells don't lie." Or read this excellent piece by AMD regarding the clots and the people who try to discredit this evidence and it has an entire section devoted to debunking Dr. Burnett who I have also written about previously. What could have caused these clots? We know the parameters of the possible causes: it's only found in vaccinated patients (or patients with a blood transfusion), it's in 40% or more of people, and they take it out intact. So it must be something injected in you, lots of people were injected, it must be novel, and it can kill you. What are the options we can consider that meet those requirements other than the vaccine?

34. How did this woman die? This case was documented in the peer-reviewed medical literature of a 32 year-old female who took 12 horrific and painful months to die after vaccination. Details. This is just representative of one of the more horrific vaccine injuries. If it wasn't the vaccine, what was the more likely cause of death and how do you know?

35. Meta-collections of issues. Can we talk about all of the issues listed in these documents:

1. Incriminating evidence

2. 100 Questions they don't want to answer

3. Questions I'd love to ask Congresswoman Anna Eshoo... that she'll never answer

4. Senator Ron Johnson's Dec 7 hearing

5. Any issue raised in any of the thousands of Substack articles written by me and my friends

36. Range of side effects is enormous. A local friend was told by her dental hygienist that the hygienist has seen 24 cases of Internal Root Resorption over the past 18 months. According to the hygienist, all 24 cases were vaxxed. Furthermore, the dental office has x-rays for each of these patients from 2019, and none of them had this issue at that time. By contrast, the hygienist said she'd only seen a total of 6 such cases in the 15 years prior. How do you explain this? See Internal root resorption: a review - PubMed (nih.gov)

I predict that no one in the world will accept our offer to have a discussion/debate on the key issues.

Their lack of interest in a fair public discussion is very hard to justify. For them, this is the easiest way to show the world that the "misinformation spreaders" are wrong which will reduce vaccine hesitancy and, according to them, save lives. They always tell us they want to reduce vaccine hesitancy: this is their golden opportunity. Why wouldn't they seize it?

So the ad campaign is important to help people realize that they have been misled.

If we do have a discussion, ideally we will have an objective third-party moderator and have it live-streamed to the public so they benefit from the real-time interactions of the participants.

Liza Dunn is a vaccine advocate and agreed to have a civil discussion with me about the VAERS data. You can listen to the 45 minute discussion here and make up your mind as to what the truth is. To save you time, she wasn't able to explain the 15,000 excess deaths in VAERS. Nobody can.

One way or another, this will ultimately lead to a massive loss of trust in:

1. Congress (and other federal legislative bodies all over the world)

2. State and local lawmakers

3. The medical community worldwide, both in academia and in medical practice

4. Medical organizations (AMA, IDSA, CMA, etc)

5. Government agencies including the FDA, CDC, NIH

6. Medical regulators including state licensing boards and certification boards

7. The mainstream media

8. Local public health officials

Apparently, that's the way they want it to end. So be it. They shall have it.

Read Dr. Byram Bridle's reaction to this post. I couldn't agree more.

I'm not content sitting around doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. It's time for new, aggressive, in your face tactics that will force the pro-narrative side either to debate us or face public ridicule for refusing to be held accountable for their decisions.

Some people will choose to be on the right side of history early. Others will wait until it is "safe" to switch sides. Sooner or later there will be a "tipping point."

My goal is to make that happen sooner rather than later.

This is going to be a very expensive campaign. If you want to help enable us to pull this off, please consider becoming a paying subscriber (only $5 a month or $50/yr). Thanks!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's stunning how the entire world is only being told one side of the narrative by the mainstream media. While we can't change that, what we can do is to make everyone aware that nobody on the pro-vaccine side will engage in an open, public civil discussion or debate on the relevant issues.

# data[].attributes.body
https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/a-petition-to-stop-fda-misleading

# data[].attributes.body
https://legal-njfm.crd.co/#legal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legal Implications

As an American Citizen you wield enormous power over your elected officials. Write them and spell out what needs to be done. This The bond fails when citizens file a complaint with the Surety Bond company. It starts there. Follow the discussion in the video below for more details. Also visit FIRST AND FOREMOST website provides the tools. You also control the school boards. Their Surety Bond is a condition of their employment and funding. Without the bond that they have taken out by collateralizing their property, as a guarantee to the people they serve that they will uphold their allegiance to the Constitution and criminal codes as well as other codes of ethics which are implied, such as the Nuremberg Code, they cannot obtain State or Federal Funding and must be recalled automatically, should their bond fail. BondsfortheWin.com

10Letters.org This site details a pragmatic approach to holding the guilty accountable. "This is not an argument about being vaxxed or not vaxxed. There would be no need for a vaccine, ventilators, or lockdowns, if they did not release an illegal gain of function bioweapon. THIS IS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE RESPONSIBLE!"

This occurred in October 2022. The UK CITIZENS SHUT DOWN JAB CENTER video explains in detail how it all came about.

Start handing out this The crimes, as of April 2022, are now enumerated in the THE NUREMBERG CODE Protesting and lawsuits is not enough. These crimes against humanity must never be repeated again in history. NOTICE OF LIABILITY FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY to anyone who is simply "following orders" or just "doing his/her job". NIH! They will reveal their method, but if you do not act they will take your silence as a token of your consent. In case they scrub the article, here's a backup.

Here is a simple letter you can address to anyone requiring proof of vaccination as a condition of employment or of having access to a school, gym, bar or restaurant. VACCINE MANDATES NOTICE Download document. Specific to Australia:

As of Oct. 1/21 Federal employees may be VACCINE INJURIES compensated for vaccine injuries.

Lawyers in the US can be found American Front Line Nurses have State Fair Employment and Housing Agencies, such as the Every state has its own Vaccines contain neurotoxins, hazardous substances, attenuated viruses, animal parts, foreign DNA, albumin from human blood, carcinogens and chemical wastes that are proven harmful to the human body. (Please see At least 27 vaccines contain cells, cellular debris, protein and DNAl (please see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf) from aborted babies including but not limited to Adenovirus, Polio, Dtap/Polio/HiB Combo, Hep A, Hep A/Hep B Combo, MMR, MMRV Pro Quad, Rabies, Varicella, Shingles vaccines, Ebola, tuberculosis, malaria and influenza (please see http://crucell.com/page/downloads/Factsheet RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION LETTER There are these forms for: EMPLOYMENT VACCINE LAWYERS here or here OTHER RESOURCES specialists who can guide you thehealthyamerican.org has valuable information. California agency, mediate on such issues. The State website should provide information on Covid issues, such as exemption rules SAMPLE LETTER vaccinations Please note that the letter must be sincere and unique, not a copy/paste job. Subject: Assertion of Religious Exemption to Vaccination To the Vaccine Exemption Committee, I hereby assert my right to a religious exemption from vaccination. I am a Christian who believes in the Bible, including the teachings in the New Testament. I have a Christian worldview. This perspective recognizes that faith and conscience compel an individual to submit to the proper jurisdiction within the rule of law, in this case, Divine Law. I am objecting to vaccines because I believe in and follow God and the principles laid out in His Word and I have a deeply held belief that vaccines violate them. I believe my body is a temple for the Holy Spirit. Specifically, the New Testament teaches that: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are...What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19 (KJV). Accordingly I believe, pursuant to my Christian faith, that my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. It is a God-given responsibility and requirement for me to protect the physical integrity of my Body against unclean food and injections. Not only the additives in vaccines considered contaminants from a biblical standpoint, the contaminants themselves are often contaminated. (Please see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20456974). The broad prohibition against consuming anything that might "defile" the body, and hence the conscience, is stated again in 1 Corinthians 8:7: "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled." Again in 2 Corinthians 7:1, there is this admonition against defiling the flesh and the spirit: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." this. More broadly, the New Testament requires of Christians that we, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17). When it comes to consuming things into our own bodies, as opposed to make payments to government, compliance with God's law is required. The mandated vaccine, with its numerous additives and it's mechanism for altering my body, is the equivalent of a prohibited "unclean food" that causes harm to my conscience. Vaccines to me are unclean. I believe in and follow God and the principles laid out in His Word and I have a deeply held belief that vaccines violate them. I make this request for the glory of God and consistent with my faith. Thank you for your consideration of it. PER.C6 Technology.pdf. Respectfully, <Your Name> ........ Pastors, Rabbis and Imams should be able to provide further guidance.

If you are a member of the armed forces you need to refer to the precedent case MILITARY Doe v Rumsfeld and Executive Order 13139. The loopholes notwithstanding, a case can be made that the Covid survival rate is no different than the annual flu, that it is not as dangerous a bioweapon as Anthrax, and that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risks of infection. And given the vaccine does not prevent infection, but seems to exacerbate the variants, it should be classified as a therapeutic on the same scale as Ivermectin and HCQ.

- The - You can have your Employer complete this Attorney - My preferred option: I would serve my employer this notarized Here is another EMPLOYMENT NOTICE OF LIABILITY So your employer backs you into a corner with No Jab No Job. What do you do? - One way to go about it is to require your employer provide proof that no employee can transmit any other communicable disease. An involved citizen writes: EEOC, as of May 28, 2021, condones employers making vaccinations a condition of employment. "I made it clear through my lawyer I would begin to demand the status of all other employee's health condition in regards to other forms of communicable diseases. We would be demanding information on employees with AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis, flu, STD, measles, mumps, and so on. My lawyer had the paper already drawn up so I could serve him (the employer) the first day he tried it, and part of the suit would be to force the company to immediately section off employees who had any Illness they could spread including the common cold. If they were going to take responsibility in stopping the spread of COVID-19 in the building, they were now liable for the spread of anything else. Within 24 hrs we were all informed that they would no longer demand to see our papers." form, courtesy of Corey's Digs. Thomas Renz, whose mentor is the Nuremberg Prosecutor and celebrated international lawyer and scholar, Henry T. King, Jr., devised this sample consent form Notice of Liability. It leaves no stone unturned. Consult an attorney before you serve this document, as it names your employer as possible co-defendant for Crimes Against Humanity. version

1. I would serve a notarized copy of this Here is another 2. I would seek a top-notch attorney, such as He served A This is the Here is a robust A A EDUCATION NOTICE OF LIABILITY Universities are mandating vaccinations. What do you do as a parent or student who opposes the experimental gene therapeutics with the greatest mortality rate in the history of vaccines? Two things "I would do". form. It's a Notice of Liability, naming the educator as codefendant for Crimes Against Humanity. You may wish to consult a lawyer first. version This is just WHAT I WOULD DO. Tom Renz. As Citizens with unalienable rights, we have a right to construe our own defense. Canada's preeminent Constitutional attorney, Rocco Gallati, issued this statement: "Educational institutions have no business pressuring, influencing, forcing , compelling, coercing, nor extorting students to assume an Emergency Use Authorization only inoculation as a term of attending. Such dictates have no place in a Constitutional Democracy. Such contractual terms are void as unconscionable because they otherwise violate common law, statutory, and moreover constitutional rights. Every individual is guaranteed the right to exercise their own medical decisions based on their own informed consent under the common law, statute and Canada's Constitution under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nor should any measures be exercised so as to reveal private medical information with respect to COVID inoculations any more than any other medical history such as HIV, STDs, or any other condition whatsoever. Colleges and Universities are not above the law, especially the Canadian Constitution. If the policies persist, legal action will ensue." notice to Canadian Universities regarding vaccine mandates on July 31, 2021. Children's Health Defense, established by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has provided the following: short letter directed to University Presidents. longer version. Mandate Tool Kit. list of 400 Universities with contact details. list of 1700 College Admissions Offices' Emails

- The VACCINE INJURIES Countermeasures Injuries Compensation Program was created so that in the unlikely event you experience a serious injury from a covered countermeasure, you may be considered for benefits.

PETITION THE FDA Children's Health Defense in collaboration with Millions Against Medical Mandates have started this petition to cease the EUA vaccination program.

- A UK attorney exemplifies courage CONFRONTING POLICE here as she references the Nuremberg Code

These are the names and addresses of the 27 state attorneys general who sued the Biden administration over the COVID-19 vaccine mandates as of November 12, 2021. Each state is hyperlinked, as some have additional information about COVID and their lawsuits on their sites. For example, Arizona's attorney general has written an extensive legal opinion on why the federal government does not have jurisdiction for a vaccine mandate in Arizona. The lawsuits was filed in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal. Steve Marshall Treg R. Taylor Alaska Department of LawMark Brnovich 2005 N Central AveLeslie Rutledge Office of Attorney General40 Capitol Square, SW700 W. Jefferson Street120 SW 10th Ave., 2nd FloorOffice of the Attorney GeneralLouisiana Department o Justice - Attorney GeneralP.O. Box 220Missouri Attorney General's OfficeAttorney GeneralNew Hampshire Department of JusticeOffice of Attorney General30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor313 NE 21st StreetThe Honorable Alan WilsonOffice of the Attorney General and ReporterOffice of the Attorney GeneralState Capitol Complex, Bldg. 1, Room E-26109 State Capitol
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501-1994 Ashley Moody
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2926 Christopher M. Carr Lawrence G. Wasden
323 Center Street, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201 Todd Rokita Tom Miller Derek Schmidt
Atlanta, GA 30334 Daniel Cameron
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0010 Jeff Landry Lynn Fitch Eric Schmitt
Topeka, KS 66612 Austin Knudsen
700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-3449 Doug Peterson
300 Capital Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Mississippi John M. Formella
Jackson, MS 39205 Wayne Stenehjem Dale Yost
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
215 N Sanders St, Helena, MT 59601 John O'Connor New Hampshire Alan Wilson
33 Capitol St
Concord, NH 03301 North Dakota Jason R. Ravnsborg Herbert Slatery III
600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 125
Bismarck, ND 58505-0040 Ken Paxton
Columbus, OH 43215 Sean D. Reyes
Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Patrick Morrisey South Carolina Bridget Hill
P.O. Box 11549
Columbia, S.C. 29211 South Dakota
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202-0207
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548 West Virginia
Charleston, WV 25305
Cheyenne, WY 82002

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As an American Citizen you wield enormous power over your elected officials. Write them and spell out what needs to be done. This The bond fails when citizens file a complaint with the Surety Bond company. It starts there. Follow the discussion in the video below for more details.

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/nunisasyu/1-red-pill-starter-pack-tey4sw7a1g0ooz4f

# data[].attributes.headline
Vax Injured Australian Doctor Speaks Out

# data[].attributes.subject
Vax Injured Australian Doctor Speaks Out

# data[].attributes.body
https://makismd.substack.com/p/former-australian-medical-association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Kerryn Phelps was the first woman to be elected President of the Australian Medical Association, was awarded the Centenary Medal for services to health and medicine, and received the Order of Australia in 2011 ( click here).
In a recent TV interview, she made some very important disclosures about the potential risks of COVID-19 vaccines:
Her partner suffered neurological side effects within minutes: numbness of hands and feet, tingling all over the body, severe headaches and pain, which have persisted since. This sounds very much like post vaccine peripheral neuropathy, similar to the COVID-19 vaccine injuries described by singer Eric Clapton ( click here).

She herself suffered side effects after her 2nd dose: her blood pressure, heart rate and temperature became unstable for months. She was diagnosed with post vaccine dysautonomia.

In a recent review of 284,592 US COVID-19 vaccinated patients by Kwan et al., dysautonomia was the 2nd most common post-vaccination diagnosis (after myocarditis), and the most common diagnosis in women ( click here):

She also brings attention to the important fact that post COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiovascular events affect women, specifically "middle aged women" and not just young men. This is a crucial point that is not being told to women by their doctors when they have discussions of risks versus benefits of COVID-19 vaccination (on the rare occasion that any such discussion takes place).

She also brings up rheumatological side effects (musculoskeletal and joint pain), neurological side effects, immune system problems (reactivation of auto-immune diseases) and more.

In this regard, the Australian Medical Regulator (AHPRA - Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) is equivalent to the Canadian Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, who have been silencing and persecuting Canadian doctors who have spoken out about COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths.

It is a startling admission by a top Australian doctor to make, that Australia's medical regulators are silencing Australian doctors on COVID-19 vaccine side effects, in violation of medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath.
Interestingly, Australian doctors will likely be held legally liable for the COVID-19 vaccine injuries they themselves are not allowed to talk publicly about.
In a letter dated January 11, 2023, Australian Medical Professionals' Society informed doctors that they may be legally liable for COVID-19 vaccine injuries suffered by their patients:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Former Australian Medical Association President suffered COVID-19 vaccine injuries - admits Australian doctors are being silenced...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch now (5 min) | Dr. Kerryn Phelps was the first woman to be elected President of the Australian Medical Association, was awarded the Centenary Medal for services to health and medicine, and received the Order of Australia in 2011 (click here).