As we discover that more and more aspects of government advice and policy don't appear to be rooted in solid science, we've started to question from where this science originates. Our investigations have taken us on a somewhat circular journey, suggesting that an unexpectedly small group appear to be controlling our destiny. The common link between the control centres, architects and scientists that are informing global Covid policy appears to be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Our founder, Rob Verkerk PhD expresses his concerns in a 20 minute video below. For those who prefer to read a transcript, you'll find it below the video.
Find related articles, information and videos in our Covid Zone
Given the current extreme level of censorship of all content that doesn't concur with the mainstream narrative, we ask that you share this widely. Thank you.
Never have so few controlled the lives of so many
We’re calling on people here to start a process of critical thinking. Those of us living in democracies must start to question and challenge the approach our governments are taking during this Covid crisis. In our view we must particularly question the transparency of the science being used to underpin the decisions and measures taken.
That’s because there’s a lot happening that doesn’t fit with the science – at least what we think of as good, objective science.
We’re being told over and over that all decisions being made by governments that are driving lockdowns, social distancing and the development of drugs and vaccines for Covid-19 are being driven by science.
But it depends on how you define science – and how you define bias or corruption in the scientific process.
We're funded only by donations. Any amount is welcomed to help us continue our work
Good science – that’s always been central to our mission at the Alliance for Natural Health – is all about how you evaluate evidence from objective observation, measurement and experimentation to better understand the world around us. That science can then be applied in many different ways. Sometimes that might be to help businesses reap just rewards for the goods and services they provide. But when it comes to science around Covid, I think most of us would expect the science to be used to maximise benefits – not for special interests – but for the public.
During this Covid pandemic – we’re seeing many examples of decisions being made ostensibly on the basis of science that don’t appear to be in the public interest. That also don’t appear either objective or independent of vested interests.
There’s a concern that billionaires – including Bill Gates but also some 200 others that have contributed to Gates and Warren Buffet’s Giving Pledge that was kicked off in 2010 – now pose a threat to transparent science and even democracy – all under the shroud of what looks like philanthropy.
The decision to initiate a global lockdown because Covid-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization and now, the obsessive reliance on R numbers to determine how lockdowns should be eased – that we wrote about last week – are just 2 examples of decisions that are difficult to argue were made on the basis of robust science.
Another screaming example of not being informed by science is the lack of emphasis being placed by governments on understanding the natural history of the disease – what would have happened if we’d not locked down?
Why do we hear so little about what’s going on Taiwan? As of today there are 440 cases and 7 deaths reported. Remember this for later: Taiwan’s not a member of the World Health Organization.
Or South Korea – with its extensive test, track and trace system and a case fatality rate of just 0.6% - about 5 times less than the case fatality rate being bandied about the World Health Organization. Or Japan with less than 700 reported deaths so far. None of these 3 countries went into full lockdowns – yet over this side of the world we hear very little about how they achieved their successes. Social customs and good IT clearly both helped.
When the decision to go into near complete global lockdown was made in March, the best science looking at the effect of lockdowns for infections caused by respiratory viruses already showed us they don’t really work.
The biggest review of studies trying to understand the effects of social distancing on interrupting or reducing the spread of respiratory viruses – by Cochrane – including 67 randomised controlled trials or observational studies – all the available, relevant evidence – said there’s not much benefit. Yet we rushed ahead – the public believing it was the right thing – and our only option.
What about the idea of letting healthy people get on with their lives and just shielding the groups we know are vulnerable? Or offering support or advice to help people improve their immune function to reduce the severity of disease?
No – still now, advice like this is being censored online because it doesn’t fit with the mainstream narrative.
Why is youtube banning videos that discuss the importance of vitamin C which is proven to be one of the most effective solutions for sepsis when delivered intravenously – especially given we know sepsis is one of the reasons critically ill people can die with Covid? The same applies to improving zinc status.
The longer you look for reasons why things are happening the way they are – the more you realise that the narrative is being controlled by a small number of people and organisations, as well as researchers and institutions – all funded from the same, so-called ‘independent’ sources.
Independence here becomes something of a moot point. Are we talking independent from governments, or are we talking about independence from say massive funding sources like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
Let’s now look at some of the main players:
The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB)is the control centre. It’s fully attached to the World Health Organization – but it’s absolutely not independent of the WHO. Bill and Melinda Gates are presently the largest funder of the WHO and the Gates Foundation has become its largest funder as Trump has presently frozen the $400 million due from the US this year – it being historically the biggest donor. The UK is next in line.
Big names like Dr Anthony Fauci from the US Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases that’s controlling the US response is on the board. As is Dr Chris Elias from the Gates Foundation and Jeremy Farrar from the Wellcome Trust – two organisations that have been at the forefront of pushing for vaccine solutions to health challenges.
It was of course Fauci who famously predicted in January 2017 there’d be a surprise outbreak during Trump’s administration. How could he be so sure?
[Fauci stated: “If there’s one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience, it is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases.”]
Anyway, back to GPMB. The GPMB is, as I said earlier, like the conductor of the orchestra. It coordinates political leaders and policy makers – it’s the reason that most countries in the world have reacted in the same way with lockdowns. They parrot the narrative in much the same way too.
Next in line we have the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations or CEPI. It describes itself as a public-private partnership and a roundtable of independent institutions in seeing vaccines deployed in the event of a global pandemic – the WHO’s disease ‘X’ scenario – a pandemic disease caused by a pathogen for which there is no pre-existing therapeutic agent or vaccine.
Covid-19 fits the bill for a ‘disease X’ – perfectly timed some might say.
The Gates Foundation is one of CEPI’s founding backers.
This is what CEPI’s head Richard Hatchett had to say about it: “We can be sure that another epidemic is on the horizon. It is not a case of if, but when. We need to be prepared. We need to invest in platform technologies that can be used to quickly respond to the emergence of a pathogen with epidemic potential.”
When CEPI was launched in 2017, Bill Gates was interviewed by London’s Financial Times. He said he hoped to "cut the time between identifying and deploying a vaccine from as many as 10 years today to less than 12 months" “If we can’t get it under a year we’d be disappointed.”
Why so quick? To save lives and get the global economy back into action? Or because they know these new-to-human coronaviruses – like SARS and MERS before it – have a habit of petering out naturally – just after interacting with the human immune system. And without a vaccine.
"Vaccines for the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola, and Zika did not follow a similar path. The SARS and Zika epidemics ended before vaccine development was complete, and federal funding agencies reallocated funds that had been committed to vaccine development, leaving manufacturers with financial losses and setting back other vaccine-development programs."
It was 2010 when Gates pledged a $10 billion spend on vaccines. That 10 years is up and like any businessman, he probably wants to see results on his 'return on investment'.
We might then ask – what forum’s do these individuals and organisations use to decide our fate? Well they do have meetings. The last one we know about was called Event 201 – in October 2019 just around the time SARS-CoV2 started transmitting human to human.
Where did it get its name or at least it’s number: 201? They decided that there’ve been a growing number of epidemics in recent years – totally around 200. So the next big one would be number 201.
During the meeting they ran a simulation – believe it or not – for a coronavirus. One that would take off in South America, not China. One that jumped to humans from pigs – not from an as yet unidentified source as in the real thing.
The event was hosted at Johns Hopkins in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. Johns Hopkins unsurprisingly is also funded by the Gates Foundation. There are 189 grants from the Gates Foundation listed on the Gates Foundation website.
And Johns Hopkins has become a major reporting portal for the pandemic.
In fact – in case anyone might think the whole thing was something of a war game to prepare for the Covid-19 – Johns Hopkins has issued a statement:
"In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a pandemic tabletop exercise called Event 201 with partners, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Recently, the Center for Health Security has received questions about whether that pandemic exercise predicted the current novel coronavirus outbreak in China. To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic. We are not now predicting that the nCoV-2019 outbreak will kill 65 million people. Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we used for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019."
As a collator of data from the WHO, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and others – the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center has become one of the key places that helps the media to fan the flames of fear around the pandemic and its impact – and the public becomes a passive and incompletely informed recipient of the information.
They compare the death rates with confirmed cases, which often gives you typically a figure of between 5 and 15% case rate fatality. But remember – you get these big percentages only when you use confirmed cases as your denominator. If we knew the real denominator and the number of people in each country and region who’ve never reported symptoms because they were so mild as well as those who’d never had any symptoms – the asymptomatic – and there are some suggestions this number might be large - we would have a very different figure. And that would dramatically dilute the public view of the deadliness of this pandemic.
But if you’re in the business of trying to develop a vaccine in record time, before the thing peters out because of its interactions with lots of healthy humans, maybe that’s not in your interest.
Among Event 201’s recommendations in October 2019, just before the virus was detected in Wuhan was
“Governments should provide more resources and support for the development and surge manufacturing of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics that will be needed during a severe pandemic.”
That's exactly what was parroted at the EU's global funding pledging event so it's a reasonable assumption the parties at Event 201 created the narrative.
The timing couldn’t have been any better.
It’s clear that Gates is all over this current agenda – as some might say – he’s done well for a software developer – especially now that he’s a key player on the mainstage of global healthcare. Because he’s been prosecuted in the late 90s for breach of anti-trust laws with Microsoft by illegally maintaining a monopoly that blocked competition.
Therefore you have to consider the possibility that the Gates Foundation's motives might not be entirely philanthropic. Having said that – a Google search of the “philanthropic Gates” brings up nearly 5,000 hits – so it’s clear someone’s working the PR rather well in a backroom.
The fact that cannot be denied is that there is a small cluster of people and organisations – most being funded by the Gates Foundation - that are making very important decisions that not only affect us and our future – but likely also our children’s futures. That shouldn’t sit easily with any of us – and you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to be concerned about this. Being a historian or just someone concerned with social justice is enough.
We need to be asking how independent is independent? What do we mean by independence – independent of who? We need to ask, who’s set to gain, who’s set to lose, and who’s set to pay for all of this?
We need to ask - how democratised is the science? We need to ask why are doctors like Drs Kory and Marik’s Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Working Group, whose protocol is saving 90% or more of patients in critical care facilities in the US compared with around 50% with standard care, being stonewalled by the National Institutes of Health?
With all the resources being thrown at vaccines – is there going to be the appetite to systematically and accurately study the extent of naturally-acquired herd immunity? What happens if such studies were to find a vaccine isn’t then needed – can we trust the transparency of findings of this kind given the huge pressure coming from those vested in vaccine technologies?
What if we were to find that well over half the global population has already been exposed to the virus – most people having barely noticed the infection? Would there be a mea culpa from those in charge, recognition that they perhaps over-reacted, that all this control and planned surveillance of the population wasn’t required anymore.
Or are we already in too deep to be able to climb out?
Are most of us so blinded by fear about the virus that we’re not able to properly understand the way in which enforced surveillance coupled with artificial intelligence could destroy most of the things we value as independent, free-thinking humans. Keep an eye on the likes of Eric Schmidt in New York who’s fast-tracking a socially distanced, AI future for New Yorkers – and that’s just the starter.
For us, transparency is the only way forward. We need to demand it on all fronts – whether it’s giving us the data that allows us to appreciate the real risks of the virus, who’s expected to pay for all of this – or what the data are to ensure the most fast-tracked vaccines in history are actually necessary and if they are deemed so, that they’re safe before they’re unleashed on citizens around the world.
Teacher, health practitioner and founder of The New School, Lucy Stephens, shares her concerns about the impact the new proposals for schools could have on child development, emotional health and wellbeing