“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

Mark 8:36, New King James Bible

(Malone News)—Have you ever spent time really thinking about the shared business model underpinning the explosive profit and capitalization of Amazon, Google/Alphabet, and Facebook/Meta?

Most reflexively respond that these three leading new economy companies have different business models, and in a superficial way, that is true. But at a deeper level, they are all based on the same core business model – Surveillance Capitalism. Many are familiar with the phrase, “If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.” This observation has become a common meme, suggesting that when a service is free, the user’s data, attention, or behavior becomes the commodity sold to third-party advertisers or companies. This concept is often applied to many online platforms, including social media, search engines, and content websites. This is really an oversimplification.

Surveillance capitalism is a business model based on the unilateral claim of human private experiences as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. These personal data are then extracted, processed, and traded to predict and influence human behavior. Specific data concerning individuals is the commodity. In this version of capitalism, the prediction and influencing of behavior (political and economic) rather than the production of goods and services is the primary product.

This truth has more to do with the metaphor underpinning The Matrix movie series rather than classical market capitalism. In The Matrix, human beings are cultivated as batteries and harvested for their energy, which serves to fuel the Matrix itself. The concept of humans as batteries is a metaphorical representation of their enslavement and exploitation by machines.

In the Surveillance Capitalism business model, you are enticed and cultivated to obsessively participate in the platform, and then your thoughts, emotions, feelings, and beliefs are harvested from all available sources, including platform-based interactions. The extracted value of these items is then algorithmically processed to yield predictive both individual and collective “futures.”

In contrast, Murray Rothbard considers capitalism to be a “network of free and voluntary exchanges” where producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others (ergo: “Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges…”). According to Rothbard, true sources of wealth are:

1. Individual Entrepreneurship: Innovation and risk-taking by individuals drive economic growth and wealth creation.
2. Voluntary Exchange: Free markets and voluntary trade allow for efficient allocation of resources and wealth creation.
3. Gold Standard: A monetary system tied to gold or a similar commodity-based standard restricts the money supply and prevents government manipulation.

In “The Anatomy of the State,” Rothbard argues that there are two means of producing wealth:

Economic Means refer to producing and exchanging goods and services through voluntary human effort, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Economic means are additive, generating wealth for all parties involved.

Political Means refers to using force or coercion to seize wealth from others. Political means are reductive, distorting incentives and undermining long-term prosperity. Taxation is a form of theft in which political means are used to seize wealth from others. Reasoning by analogy, Surveillance Capitalism is a form of theft in which accumulated personal wealth in the form of fundamental, personal, and proprietary aspects of your soul is extracted and commodified without your permission.

Under Surveillance Capitalism, theft by commodification is practiced by machines acting on behalf of a small subset of humanity to involuntarily extract (or seize) value (wealth) from other human beings. Under Rothbard’s logical formulation, this is fundamentally a political rather than an economic transaction. Once reformulated, repackaged, and marketed, this value generates wealth for the Surveillance Capitalist by removing and thereby diminishing the personal wealth of the individual who is typically (and intentionally) uninformed of the loss.

In the case of the Facebook and Google versions of Surveillance Capitalism, behavioral and emotional futures are repeatedly auctioned off to third parties who use the information for various economic and political purposes. In most cases, the extracted value is repeatedly resold to multiple buyers. Amazon does the same but is more vertically integrated. Like Facebook and Google, Amazon extracts the information from you and processes it to yield predictive futures. However, rather than selling to third parties, Amazon uses this information internally to support the direct marketing of its products and those of third-party vendors.

Under the Surveillance Capitalism business model, you are not the product, but rather, your thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and knowledge are the natural resources being mined to yield the raw materials that are then used to build predictive “futures” products. This goes far beyond the 20th and even 21st-century analysis concerning the psychological basis for totalitarianism described by Hannah Arendt and Mattias Desmet. The commodification of your thoughts, feelings, emotions, and needs via the Surveillance Capitalism business model is what enables and powers the expanding daily reality of globalized techno totalitarianism.

What is Commodification, and How Does It Differ from Commoditization?

Commodification transforms inalienable, free, or gifted things (objects, services, ideas, nature, personal information, people, or animals) into commodities or objects for sale. It means losing an inherent quality or social relationship when something is integrated by a capitalist marketplace. Concepts that have been argued as being commodified include broad items such as the body, intimacy, public goods, animals, and holidays.

Intangible, non-produced items (love, water, air, Hawaii) are commodified, whereas produced items (wheat, salt, microchips) are commoditized. Karl Marx extensively criticized the social impact of commodification under the name commodity fetishism and alienation.

In Marxist economic theory, prior to being turned into a commodity, an object has a “specific individual use value.” After becoming a commodity, that same object has a different value: the amount for which it can be exchanged for another commodity. According to Marx, this new value of the commodity is derived from the time taken to produce the good, and other considerations are obsolete, including morality, environmental impact, and aesthetic appeal. In a sense, the value of a commodity reflects both the intrinsic value of an item or service and the value added by extrinsic factors (scarcity, marketing) that increase its perceived value.

Before the term was even created, Marx predicted that everything would eventually be commodified: “the things which until then had been communicated, but never exchanged, given, but never sold, acquired, but never bought – virtue, love, conscience – all at last enter into commerce.”

Where Does This Go from Here?

Once you have understood this, please go ahead and explore it further.

Many adjacencies, corollaries, and derivatives are associated with the fundamentals of Surveillance Capitalism. Take a moment to consider the interface between the Surveillance Capitalism business model and the Censorship-Industrial Complex business. Or Surveillance Capitalism and Politics – with Cambridge Analytica Ltd. being an early embodiment. Or Surveillance Capitalism and the Biodefense-Industrial Complex business. Or Surveillance Capitalism and Transhumanism. Or a thousand others.

All of these economic models and domains recognize no boundaries. All exist in a sort of Wild West, actively rejecting and deflecting all legal and ethical constraints on economic, political, and medical activities. These are treated as unacceptable boundary conditions to advancing “innovation,” market domination, and capital accumulation. Ethical, moral, religious, and legal constraints must be disregarded or circumvented in the name of progress and profit.

Overriding all of this is what is essentially an emerging suite of marketing technologies consisting of military-grade psychological warfare tactics and strategies; PsyWar. Surveillance Capitalism provides the economic model, logic, extracted data, and value that fuel and guide modern psychological warfare deployment.

I am deeply troubled by the many observable interactions between modern psychological warfare technologies, tactics, and strategies, the observations and predictions of Hannah Arendt and Mattias Desmet concerning the psychology of totalitarianism, and Surveillance Capitalism.

I fear the further development of feedback loops between these fundamental social, political, and economic forces. I sense that these feedback loops will enable and drive human society toward the dark collectivist and globalist transhuman future with which the World Economic Forum seems so enthralled.

By deploying PsyWar capabilities on top of these other business models, which are being expanded and enhanced by the predictive “futures” products of Surveillance Capitalism, humanity will be driven towards a new surrealist reality in which all feelings, beliefs, morality, and behavior will be a synthesized product in which wealth accumulation will become the exclusive right of a small controlling elite who no longer recognize the existence of their own souls, but rather exist at the interface of man and machine, and seek to birth a new species of man/machine fusion. Turning and turning in a widening gyre, disassociated from the falconer. Intentionally and unthinkingly giving rise to a slouching rough beast.

In the short term, I am also deeply troubled by the challenge posed by all of this to my faith in free market capitalism and my fascination with the logic of the Austrian School of Economics and its modern “Anarcho-capitalist” embodiment. I worry that when capitalist absolutism becomes decoupled from fundamental Judeo-Christian ethics, and everything becomes commodified all the time, then all remaining human souls become at risk of being crushed into dust under a globalist techno totalitarian millstone.

About the Author

Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr.

(Dr. Malone’s Substack)—On January 23, 2024, under Biden Administration guidance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule that will bring 3,879 meat and poultry products (MPP) processing facilities under their jurisdiction. This was swiftly followed by an abbreviated comment period which closed on March 25, 2024, and then immediate implementation of the rule change. All justified by wastewater levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus coming from animal meat processing, mirroring the WEF agenda to minimize Nitrogen runoff from European farms which has sparked the widespread farmer protests throughout the European Union.

The new rule involves a major shift in the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the meat and poultry industry, threatening their livelihoods by forcing them to add water filtration systems to their facilities.

What does this mean to small meat processing facilities?  It’s been reported that the initial cost to install a water filtration system bringing them into compliance be $300,000-400,000 with a minimum of $100,000 annual maintenance.  This would force many small meat processing facilities to shutter their doors.

It is also a direct attack on the buy local foods movement.  If local meat producers no longer have a nearby facility to process the meat, they will no longer be able to provide their product direct to the customer at food markets or online.

The EPA initially promulgated the MPP ELGs in 1974 and amended them in 2004.  Currently, they only apply to approximately 150 of the 5,055 MPP facilities in the industry.  But, in the EPA’s Benefit Cost Analysis, they state that “EPA estimates the regulatory options potentially affect 3,879 MPP facilities.”

Accordingly, the history of EPA’s regulation of MPP effluent guidelines and standards has never extended beyond direct discharge facilities and this rule significantly expands their regulatory overreach.

The Kansas Natural Resource Coalition (KNRC) filed comments opposing the proposed rule and was joined by other county coalitions and American Stewards of Liberty.  KNRC, an organization of 30 Kansas counties, states these proposed rules will “regulate indirect discharge facilities” that “departs from constitutional and statutory authority” significantly altering the balance between state and federal powers.

They also state that the proposal “gives priority to environmental justice goals and emphasizes ecological benefits, but the EPA jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act is not based on ecological importance or environmental justice.”

• EPA Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rule
• KNRC Filed Comments

Demonstrating that the “comment period” was mere window dressing to meet formal federal comment requirements, immediately on March 25, 2024 the EPA jammed through a finalized version of its devastating new interpretation of the Clean Water Act, which it has titled “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category.” Clearly this is another case of aggressive, arbitrary and capricious EPA regulatory overreach, directly analogous to the recent Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

According to the EPA, after months of study and testing to look for bacteria, viruses etc, what they actually found in the wastewater of processing facilities was Nitrogen and Phosphorus. Two of the fundamental elements which all living things are composed of (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus).

As a result, The EPA has decided that the entire meat industry – from slaughtering beef to poultry, marinas to packaging – must now retrofit current facilities with lagoons and biomass dissipates to turn “nutrients” into C02 and methane in order to prevent these “pollutants” from entering local water supplies.

The EPA anticipates these new rules will, at least, result in the closure of 16 processing facilities across the country at a time when our country’s meat producers are already struggling to survive due to bottlenecks in USDA certified facilities. However, on the high side EPA estimates include an impact range of up to 845 processing facilities.

The EPA acknowledges (via the Federal Register) that this rule change will have far-reaching impacts up and down the supply chain from consumer prices to producer losses.

A press release was just put out by a consortium of protein producers who have said this will cost “millions more than the EPA’s highest estimates and result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.”

It gets worse;

Facilities can bypass these new regulations by drastically reducing their weekly/annual pounds processed. However, the US population continues to grow (largely due to immigration) at a rate that we’re currently incapable of feeding with record low volumes of meet production. Reducing pounds processed will have sizable impacts upon food security, as will further closures, and supply chain disruptions. These issues have now risen to the point of being a national security threat.

Problems in the rule change;

– The rule change fails to provide clarity or funding to local water treatment facilities for testing or range of acceptable levels of runoff, and in my opinion over-steps federal authority (WOTUS jurisdiction) by dictating local water rights. Especially as the EPA acknowledges most water used in processing is from a well source, or privately owned water source.

– The rules fail to account for foreign inputs, and actually incentivize domestic closures, prioritizing imported meat products in a manner conducive to the monopolistic multinational conglomerate beef producers who are not US based. This, at a time when the US has gradually become a net importer yet facing critical infrastructure collapses, such as Key Bridge.

– The rules specify 17 species of endangered animals that may become affected by the salt residues (a byproduct of the process they want used to turn biomass into gas), as these salts flow “downstream” from processing facilities. This is bogus language to attempt to establish jurisdictional standing, as the rules do not differentiate between facilities that are near navigable waters vs facilities that have private water rights.

However, for those who do comply, as opposed to reducing production, they’ll be left open and vulnerable to future lawsuits from environmental activists over endangered species. These lawsuits have historically become costly, with states eventually caving to the demands made, as evidenced by the Oregon Dept of Forestry v Cascadia in filing after filing – Spotted Owl to CoHo Salmon – resulting in the drastic reduction of privately owned timber lands and logging contracts.

– The rules currently allow for the off-gassing of the biomass as it becomes C02 and methane, but say nothing about future carbon taxes, or financial burdens that may be incurred due to the additional carbon outputs via the new carbon credit/taxes the Biden Administration created via the Commodities Credit Corporation. Oregon, California and Washington have already instituted state versions of Cap and Trade legislation e.g. requiring companies to purchase these carbon credits in order to remain in business.

Aside from the massive overreach in relation to non-navigable waters of the US, typically locally regulated, or an authority reserved to the states to regulate, these new rule changes have the potential to negatively impact our food supply for years to come.

Congressmen Estes and Burlison have proposed H.R 7079, the “BEEF ACT” (formally known as H.R.7079 – Banning EPA’s Encroachment on Facilities Act), as a means of prohibiting the EPA from using its deferential authority (Chevron doctrine) to interpret the Clean Water Act. However, this legislation currently has a 1% chance of being enacted, and only a 4% chance of passing out of the House Committee on Transportation.

In parallel to direct legislative action, there is clearly a need to mount a legal challenge to this action, one which can build upon the precedent established by West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which should benefit from the anticipated Supreme Court action to overturn the Chevron Deference legal precedent which currently enables this type of regulatory overreach. Further information concerning the Chevron Deference can be found in this substack essay, and SCOTUS Blog has covered the current status of the Supreme Court case in an article titled “Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron”.

This substack essay includes analysis and text from both Breeauna Sagdal, Senior Writer and Research Fellow at The Beef Initiative Foundation as well as from American Stewards of Liberty.

By globally synchronizing the public health response across the United Nations member states, new powers were granted to the UN and its organizations at the cost of national sovereignty. These universally applied regulations and multilateral agreements have given birth to an enlarged, globalized administrative state.

Although this power grab has been percolating for many decades, the Covid crisis acted as an accelerant to synergize international agreements that advance the UN as a world government.

The United Nations has morphed into a leviathan. Its various agreements and goals seek to centrally dictate the world’s economy, migration, “reproductive health,” monetary systems, digital IDs, environment, agriculture, wages, climate modifications, one world health, and other related globalist programs.

To be clear, these are the goals of an organization seeking a globalized command economy, not an organization focused on world peace, ending wars, or human rights!

This UN aims to regulate every dimension of our personal and national lives. It is working to reduce and eliminate national sovereignty across the world, and thereby to decrease our diversity, our traditions, our religions and our national identities.

The UN has partnerships and strategic agreements with member nations, as well as other globalist organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank, CEPI, GAVI, the World Trade Organization, the European Union, and the World Economic Forum, known as the WEF.

Here’s an example of how the United Nations operates.

The WEF and the UN signed a strategic agreement and partnership in 2019.  Remember that the WEF has a commitment to “stakeholder capitalism,” by which private-partnerships work to control governments.

The WEF developed a plan in 2020 to use the Covid-crisis to reorganize global governance around social issues including climate change – this plan was called the Great Reset.

The WEF is a trade organization representing the world’s largest corporations. It repeatedly exploits disruptive technologies to enhance economic growth opportunities for its corporate members. The WEF is specifically designed to advance the economic power of its global elite members, otherwise known as the “billionaire class.”

As the WEF feeds money into the United Nations through their 2019 strategic agreement, who is managing the conflicts of interests that come with this partnership? Where is the transparency?

The UN has fourteen specialized organizations under its leadership, all involved in global governance, including the World Health Organization or WHO.

None of these organizations have anything to do with the scope of the original UN charter, which was focused on ending wars, promoting world peace, and human rights.

The UN has been quietly building power for years prior to the pandemic through various agreements and treaties. For instance, the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” is a recent example of such an agreement. Agenda 2030 is a treaty for “transforming our world” and was signed into international law in 2015. This treaty has elevated the United Nations to a position of a self-serving global government bureaucracy.

Agenda 2030 has 17 goals and 169 targets, which vary widely in scope and topic, but almost all of these goals directly affect world governance.

Here are just a few examples from the Agenda 2030 treaty.  Is this what the United Nations should be concerned with, or are these issues more properly addressed by the policies of sovereign nations?

“We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change.”

“Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men.”

“Eliminate discriminatory laws, policies and practices.“

“Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.”

“Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people.”

“By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”

“This is an Agenda of unprecedented scope and significance. It is accepted by all countries and is applicable to all…”

Agenda 2030 is essentially a totalitarian socialist manifesto.  These and many more forceful statements regarding the reduction of national rights are found in this United Nations Treaty.

The UN has signed strategic agreements with the largest organizations, corporations, and world powers to fulfill their utopian vision for the world.

This is a new world order – with unelected officials in control. That means that you and I will be ruled by a non-democratic UN administrative bureaucracy. This is a form of inverse totalitarianism. A world order based on a command economy; one that is at its core both socialist and totalitarian.

Now, these goals and targets may be fine for any single nation to undertake but this is a restructuring of the United Nations beyond its charter.

Early in the pandemic, the UN – through its surrogate the WHO, declared that a global vaccine passport was needed, and provided extensive guidance to member nations to standardize vaccine passports worldwide.

In response, the leaders of the G-20 issued a declaration in 2022 supporting development of a global standard of vaccination for international travel and the establishment of “global digital health networks” to be built on existing digital Covid-19 vaccine passports.

In June 2023, a new initiative between the EU and the WHO for strategic cooperation on global health issues was announced. This agreement seeks to:

“bolster a robust multilateral system with the World Health Organization at its core, powered by a strong European Union.”

After failing to manage the Covid crisis, the WHO now seeks more money and power to control all aspects of our health and lives.  They intend to amend the International Health Regulations to govern the “pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” of future outbreaks, which includes public health emergencies of any type. This includes a major role for the WHO in direct governance, as opposed to a guidance-based role.

These changes are predicated on G-20 global adoption of “vaccine passports.” These passports will collect and contain private health data, and will enable surveillance, tracking, and control of individuals and populations worldwide. The passports will include not only Covid-19 vaccine data, but the status of all vaccinations. It will become a world digitized passport – including personal health information that the United Nations has no right to access.

The G20 Joint Declaration regarding vaccine passports and future pandemics is a declaration on how future pandemics will be handled.  It states:

“We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognising digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations.

We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the efforts to strengthen, prevention and response to future pandemics, that should capitalise and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.”

The G-20 is also working with the International Monetary Fund (the financial agency of the UN), the World Bank (which has a founding treaty relationship with the UN) and the Bank for International Settlements to formalize use of central bank digital currencies in banking systems. The Bank for International Settlements specifically refers to “the disruption caused by Covid-19” as a justification to create central bank digital currencies.

The pandemic has allowed world leaders to coalesce global administrative power under the guise of public health through the administrative bureaucracy of the UN. Public health has been weaponized to gain control of passports, travel, banking, the environment, and the international economy. This is a gross violation of the individual’s right to privacy, national sovereignty, and the UN charter.

It is just a matter of time before these vaccine passports will be coupled with central bank digital currencies. Then the passports can be used to deny the unvaccinated or other political dessenters access to travel and use of their own money.

Once international passports, central bank digital currencies, command economy aspects of the UN’s Agenda 2030, and the WHO amendments to the IHRs are put into place, the groundwork for a new world order will be complete. A global administrative state, whose core power resides with the UN, will become a spiderweb of rules, regulations, agreements, and treaties within which individuals and nations will be trapped like flies.

This new global governance will be virtually unbreakable.  From there, it is only a matter of time before national sovereignty becomes obsolete. This is a reality, unless we fight to stop this madness.

For this reason, the power of the United Nations must be exposed and curtailed.

Globalists seeking to advance their agendas are using the model of the European Union, whereby rules and regulations stymie national sovereignty, to build a worldwide system of control.

All must fight this takeover at the local, national and international level. We must use the courts, our legislatures, media, public protests and the power vested in our national and state sovereignty to fight this. If all else fails, individual nations may need to withdraw from the UN’s New World Order in order to remain free.

Let’s work together to keep our personal and national sovereignty safe for future generations. A New World Order is not needed, is not acceptable, and we the people and our sovereign governments should unequivocally reject this globalized takeover.

This speech was written and then delivered at the International Crisis Summit held in The Palace of the Parliament in Romania by Jill Glasspool Malone on Nov 18, 2023.

About the Author

Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr

This was written by one of the U.K.’s most eminent cardiologists, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who was one of the first to take two doses of the vaccine and promote it on “Good Morning Britain.”

Malhotra now says that since the rollout of the vaccine, the evidence of its effectiveness and true rates of adverse events have changed and now, “There is a strong scientific, ethical, and moral case to be made that COVID-19 vaccines rollout must stop immediately until raw data has been released for fully independent scrutiny.”

Furthermore, real-world data reveal that in the non-elderly population, the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one death from COVID-19 runs into thousands and that re-analysis of randomized controlled trial data from the initial vaccine clinical trials suggests a greater risk of suffering a serious adverse event from the vaccine than to be hospitalized with COVID-19.

Summary overviews of the two-part research paper are below, together with a transcript of the above video in which he introduces his findings.

Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine – Part 1

Aseem Malhotra Journal of Insulin Resistance | Vol 5, No 1 | a71 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/jir.v5i1.71

Background: In response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), several new pharmaceutical agents have been administered to billions of people worldwide, including the young and healthy at little risk from the virus. Considerable leeway has been afforded in terms of the pre-clinical and clinical testing of these agents, despite an entirely novel mechanism of action and concerning biodistribution characteristics.

Aim: To gain a better understanding of the true benefits and potential harms of the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) coronavirus disease (COVID) vaccines.

Methods: A narrative review of the evidence from randomised trials and real world data of the COVID mRNA products with special emphasis on BionTech/Pfizer vaccine.

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19s.

Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.

Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine – Part 2

Aseem Malhotra Journal of Insulin Resistance | Vol 5, No 1 | a72 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/jir.v5i1.72 |

Background: Authorities and sections of the medical profession have supported unethical, coercive, and misinformed policies such as vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, undermining the principles of ethical evidence-based medical practice and informed consent. These regrettable actions are a symptom of the ‘medical information mess’: The tip of a mortality iceberg where prescribed medications are estimated to be the third most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer.

Aim: To identify the major root causes of these public health failures.

Methods: A narrative review of both current and historical driving factors that underpin the pandemic of medical misinformation.

Results:Underlying causes for this failure include regulatory capture – guardians that are supposed to protect the public are in fact funded by the corporations that stand to gain from the sale of those medications. A failure of public health messaging has also resulted in wanton waste of resources and a missed opportunity to help individuals lead healthier lives with relatively simple – and low cost – lifestyle changes.

Conclusion: There is a strong scientific, ethical and moral case to be made that the current COVID vaccine administration must stop until all the raw data has been subjected to fully independent scrutiny. Looking to the future the medical and public health professions must recognise these failings and eschew the tainted dollar of the medical-industrial complex. It will take a lot of time and effort to rebuild trust in these institutions, but the health – of both humanity and the medical profession – depends on it.

In a recent interview with GB news, Dr. Malhotra goes on to say:

“When the vaccines were first released we were told they were 95% effective against infection.

This is not true. This is based on relative risk reduction. In absolute terms, they provided 0.84 percent protection which means only one in 119 people would be protected from infection.

This statistic was the pretense under which vaccine mandates were implemented.

“The latest data reveals that once infected there is no significant difference in transmission rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, which makes any scientific case for mandates illegitimate.

As newer and thankfully, less lethal, mutated strains became dominant, any protection against infection at the very least became less effective and likely completely ineffective, even if there is some significant (as yet to be fully determined in absolute individual terms) protection against serious illness and death.”

Precisely as was described in the video from the Canadian COVID care alliance which I cross posted resulting in my being deplatformed from Twitter.

The Canadian COVID care alliance has since developed additional videos which make this same point- the SARS-CoV-2 genetic vaccines are neither safe nor effective, and must be stopped. Please see the Canadian COVID care alliance webpage for links.

On a personal note … Malhotra’s realization that his father had just been vaccinated just prior to his cardiac arrest and death led him down the path of discovery.

Being a good scientist means looking past the propaganda and delving into the research.

BREAKING:
I am holding the government directly responsible for the death of my father @KailashChandOBE (& likely countless others) for deliberately withholding information from the public & doctors that would have changed his outcome. The #NHS is broken. https://t.co/q9e7erbFw7 pic.twitter.com/dls5QqRN0Z

— Dr Aseem Malhotra (@DrAseemMalhotra) September 3, 2021

Sometimes, it takes a wake-up call, but thank goodness at least one great physician listened to the evidence.

In August, Malhotra wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson and U.S. President Joe Biden calling for the immediate release of the raw data from Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccine trial.

Here’s a transcript for the video:

My name is Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Consultant Cardiologist. Today, I share my most recent publication, published in the peer reviewed, international Journal of Insulin Resistance. The title of my paper is Curing the Pandemic of Misinformation on the COVID MRNA Vaccines Through Real Evidence-Based Medicine. In part one of the paper, I aim to determine, through critical analysis of randomized control trial data and real-world evidence, the true benefits and harms of the COVID MRNA vaccines, with special emphasis on the biotech Pfizer vaccine.

The conclusions are quite sobering. In the non-elderly population, the numbers needed to treat to prevent one COVID death run into the thousands. Reanalysis of randomize control trial data from both Moderna and Pfizer reveals one is more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from the COVID-19 vaccines than to be hospitalized with COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance data, coupled with plausible biological mechanism of harm, is also deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety, mirroring a potential signal from Pfizer’s phase three trial. There is also a significant increase in [inaudible 00:01:32] cardiac arrests in England in 2021, data which is also replicated in Israel, with an increase in heart attacks and sudden cardiac death in people aged between 16 and 39, specifically related to the COVID MRNA vaccines and not related to COVID.

In part two of the paper, I aim to get to the root cause to understand why authorities in sections of the medical profession supported unethical, coercive, and misinformed policies, such as vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, undermining the principles of ethical evidence-based medicine and informed consent. These regrettable actions are the symptom of the medical misinformation mess, the tip of a mortality iceberg where prescribed medications are now estimated to be the third most common cause of death, after heart disease and cancer. Underlying root causes of this include regulatory capture. Guardians that are supposed to protect the public are in fact funded by the very corporations that stand to gain from the sale of those medications.

A failure of public health messaging has also resulted in wanton waste of resources and a missed opportunity to help individuals lead healthier lives through relatively simple, low-cost lifestyle changes. In conclusion of both papers, there is a strong scientific, ethical, and moral case to be made that COVID-19 vaccines rollout must stop immediately until raw data has been released for fully independent scrutiny. Looking to the future, the medical and public health professions must recognize these failings and eschew the tainted dollar of the medical industrial complex. It will take a lot of time and effort to restore trust in these institutions, but the future and the health of both the medical profession and humanity depend on it. To read both papers, which are free and open access, please visit insulinresistance.org.

Thank you.

Article cross-posted from Dr. Malone’s Substack page.

The declaration was made unilaterally, in direct contradiction of independent review panel advice, by WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Tedros made the declaration despite a lack of consensus among members of the WHO’s emergency committee on the monkeypox outbreak, and in so doing overruled his own review panel, who had voted 9 against, 6 for declaring the PHEIC. Tedros asserted that this committee of experts (who met on Thursday) was unable to reach a consensus, so it fell on him to decide whether to trigger the highest alert possible.

Any objective outside observer would conclude that the committee failed to endorse moving to a PHEIC. When a similar meeting was previously held on June 23, 2022, the committee resolved by consensus to advise the WHO Director-General that at this stage the outbreak should be determined to not constitute a PHEIC. An official United Nations article summarizing this can be found here.

When the group met in June, the breakdown was 11 against and three for. It is not clear what has changed in the intervening four weeks to justify the change in Tedros’ position, although comments from internet pundits raise concerns that the unilateral action was taken in response to pressure from special interest advocacy groups.

There has also been a sudden burst of coordinated social media postings raising concerns regarding Monkeypox risks to children, which raises the question “If Monkeypox is a sexually transmitted disease, why are kids getting it?”

On Friday, the U.S. confirmed the first two cases of monkeypox in children, Centers for Disease Control Prevention and Control (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky said Friday. The CDC has said children, especially those under 8 years old, are among those at “especially increased risk” for severe monkeypox disease.

At a virtual event with the Washington Post on Friday focused on new coronavirus variants, Walensky stated that:

“Both of those children are traced back to individuals who come from the men-who-have-sex-with-men community, the gay men’s community,”

Clearly, the WHO committee did not reach the desired decision to declare a PHEIC, and so for some extraordinary reason Tedros stepped in.

Though the committee does not formally vote, a survey of the members revealed that nine thought a PHEIC should not be declared and six supported a declaration. “Nine and six is very, very close,” Tedros said in a news conference called to announce the decision. “Since the role of the committee is to advise, I then had to act as a tie-breaker.”

Tedros made the declaration despite a lack of consensus among members of the WHO’s emergency committee on the monkeypox outbreak. It’s the first time a leader of a UN health agency has made such a decision unilaterally.

In the event of a deadly disease outbreak, a group of World Health Organization (WHO) experts can declare a “public health emergency of international concern,” or PHEIC, to trigger global action. Since the procedures to declare a PHEIC were implemented in 2005, the WHO has only done so six times. The last time the WHO declared an international emergency was in early 2020, for Covid-19.

The designation of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is the WHO’s highest alert level. It is based on international health regulations established in 2005, to define countries’ rights and obligations in handling cross-border public health occurrences.

The WHO defines a PHEIC as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.”

The WHO further explains how this definition implies a situation that is serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected; carries implications for public health beyond an affected country’s border and may require immediate international action.

Tedros’ statements clearly demonstrate that he unilaterally substituted his own opinions for those of the convened panel, raising questions of his objectivity, commitment to process and protocol, and whether he has been unduly influenced by external agents:

I have decided that the global monkeypox outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern”

“WHO’s assessment is that the risk of monkeypox is moderate globally and in all regions, except in the European region where we assess the risk as high”

“We have an outbreak that has spread around the world rapidly through new modes of transmission about which we understand too little and which meets the criteria in the international health regulations,” Tedros said.

“I know this has not been an easy or straightforward process and that there are divergent views among the members” of the committee,” he added.

“Although I am declaring a public health emergency of international concern, for the moment this is an outbreak that is concentrated among men who have sex with men, especially those with multiple sexual partners,” Tedros went on. “That means that this is an outbreak that can be stopped with the right strategies in the right groups.”

As the outbreak continues to grow, epidemiologists are split as to whether the WHO’s decision was correct. The meeting was the second time the emergency committee convened, after a meeting on June 23 when it decided the outbreak had not met that threshold.

Dr. Jimmy Whitworth, a professor of international public health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine:

“It is a tricky decision for the committee, in some senses, it meets the definition — it is an unprecedented outbreak widespread in many countries and would benefit from increased international coordination.

On the other hand, it seems to be an infection for which we have the necessary tools for control; most cases are mild and the mortality rate is extremely low”

The PHEIC designation comes from the International Health Regulations (IHR) created in 2005, and it represents an international “agreement” to help the prevent and respond to public health risks that have the potential to spread around the globe.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US CDC) describes the IHR regulations as “a legally binding agreement of 196 countries to build the capability to detect and report potential public health emergencies worldwide. IHR require that all countries have the ability to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events.”

These are the same IHR which the Biden administration sought to further strengthen, but the attempt to implement proposed modifications were placed on hold after an international, multi-country outcry concerning loss of national autonomy. The unilateral actions of Tedros in this current situation clearly demonstrate that these concerns were warranted.

Despite the statement by the US CDC, the WHO IHR are not a treaty which has been endorsed by the US Senate, and the assertion that these are legally binding has been challenged.

In an article supportive of the declaration, Vox news provided a summary of the potential financial beneficiaries of this declaration; that being vaccine manufacturers and the holding companies who have invested in them.

The emergency ought to get countries to share vaccines. But it’s not guaranteed.

Vaccination plays a key role in controlling monkeypox transmission during an outbreak, and crucially, these vaccines already exist.

The Covid-19 pandemic taught the world some painful lessons about the importance of global coordination to ensuring fast and equitable vaccine distribution. The PHEIC alarm bell hopefully will spur action so the same mistakes are not repeated.

A major reason global health experts have been anxious over the timeliness of a WHO emergency declaration for monkeypox is the declaration’s potential to get vaccines to the most vulnerable groups quickly.

Vaccines do exist to prevent monkeypox, and while many countries have a quantity of these vaccines on hand as part of their national stockpiles, US demand has greatly outpaced supply, and the global supply of vaccines isrelativelysmall.Countries have been scrambling to order more vaccines, and while the producer of the most popular monkeypox vaccine has not disclosed which countries have put down orders, the nations that have announced vaccine purchases have generally been higher-income ones, like Germany, Britain, and Canada.

That portends a pattern of vaccine inequity that unfolded to tragic effect during the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, with poorer countries struggling to acquire vaccines and cut off from vaccine production efforts. In his announcement of the WHO’s Emergency Committee’s plan to convene in June, WHO Europe director Hans Kluge said following a more equitable blueprint for monkeypox vaccine distribution would be a key step in controlling the outbreak.

“A ‘me first’ approach could lead to damaging consequences down the road if we do not employ a genuinely collaborative and far-thinking approach,” Kluge said. “I beseech governments to tackle monkeypox without repeating the mistakes of the pandemic — and keeping equity at the heart of all we do.”

When the WHO declares an emergency, it also makes recommendations to affected countries, which often relate to vaccination strategies. This spurs countries to coordinate vaccine strategies to increase vaccine supply in less wealthy countries. It can also spur donors to fund vaccination efforts that prioritize equitable access to vaccines. However, the WHO’s recommendations in the face of an emergency are ultimately just recommendations.

The ACT Accelerator, a collaboration to raise funds to distribute Covid-19 tests, therapies, and vaccines to low-resource countries, was an attempt at an equitable solution in the pandemic. However, in the eyes of many, it did not succeed. Public health experts are hopeful earlier action on monkeypox could avoid some of the ACT Accelerator’s pitfalls.

In its announcement today, WHO representatives said it was encouraging countries with large vaccine stockpiles to share and donate vaccines to other countries who do not currently have access to vaccines.

“There’s no way to enforce that globally,” Heymann said.

Please see previous coverage of this issue, which clearly demonstrate the concerted effort to weaponize fear by a variety of stakeholders including corporate media and Bill and Melinda Gates affiliated organizations.

About the Author

Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr

Reposted from the author’s Substack via Brownstone Institute.