Emergency powers

We  like to feel empowered in the knowledge we have control over our own destiny. But this idea has been somewhat shaken by the events of the last few months.

We are all now highly aware of the level of control that governments can have over our lives—in many cases these powers having laid dormant within various laws, only to be enacted once a state of emergency has been declared. That happened on March 11, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.

For many of us, it’s the first time in our lives that such an emergency has occurred, though it was something many of our parents or grandparents experienced, such as during World War II.

When a government decides to lock down its population to ostensibly protect them from a virus, most of us have no option but to comply. People are dying, and most of us accept the narrative that’s being fed to us: self-isolate to reduce transmission of the virus, protect the healthcare services that are tasked with saving lives from being overrun, and face any indirect collateral damage, softened by a few government handouts to those eligible.    

It all sounds plausible. But only if you accept that the narrative is based on facts and real science. At the Alliance for Natural Health, we’ve been analyzing the data since the start of the pandemic, and it’s remarkable how many key decisions fly in the face of published science—like lockdowns, telling people to support their immune systems, or using intravenous vitamin C in critical care.

On top of that, propaganda machines have been running at full tilt to enlist support for government agendas, the global audience being more susceptible to psychological manipulation than usual because so many have been glued to news feeds—paralyzed by fear of overblown risks.

So where does the information originate? Our research revealed a common link between the control centers, policy makers and academics: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. With the US government withholding payment to the WHO, the Gates Foundation is currently its largest donor.

The WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board even has on its board none other than the president of the Gates Foundation, Dr Chris Elias.

The Gates Foundation is also a founding backer of CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation), a Norwegian association with the mission “to stimulate and accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.”

COVID-19 has become a huge focus, and unsurprisingly CEPI is intimately linked to the vaccine industry.

You’ve then got organizations like the GAVI Alliance, which is all about maximizing vaccination coverage around the world. The core partners are the WHO, UNICEF, World Bank and, wait for it, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

What about academia? Johns Hopkins University, with its Coronavirus Resources Center, has become a go-to resource for media as well as many researchers and members of the public, and it’s received almost 200 grants to date from the Gates Foundation.   

There’s more, but our space is limited. All this would be fine if we knew that this small circle of people, organizations and interests wasn’t so closely linked to the companies that are set to profit massively from mass vaccination.

There used to be some separation between vaccine makers and governments, who have, since the late 1980s, indemnified the manufacturers in the event of “no-fault” vaccine injury. But now they all sit together on the same boards.

In any other walk of life this would be viewed as a conflict of interest, but apparently it helps if your mission is widely viewed as philanthropic.

Event 201, with representatives from all the above players present, met at Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health Security in October 2019, just as the SARS-CoV-2 virus was starting to spread in China. At the meeting they ran a simulation of a coronavirus that jumped to humans from an animal (pig) and didn’t have a therapeutic agent or vaccine to treat it as it was brand new to our species.

Sound familiar? They considered many of the measures needed up until such time as a vaccine would be ready.

Perhaps we should consider ourselves lucky that they had this chance to plan what was needed just prior to publicity over the Wuhan outbreak?

But when such a small group controls the fate of so many—and what they do and the data they rely on lacks independence from those set to benefit—I find it difficult to trust, especially when I know much of the output doesn’t fit with objective, independent science, and seems closely coupled with an agenda to increase surveillance and reduce our freedom of choice around many things we have long valued in so-called free societies.

Let’s keep our eyes wide open, let’s demand transparency, and let’s use the democratic process for what it’s worth. The next generation I’m sure will be grateful for our efforts.