It is routine practice for high-level officials at the FDA to leave the agency and take lucrative positions within Big Pharma, explains a new investigatory report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The conflicts of interest with such an arrangement are endless, but they have never stopped this revolving door from spinning. Internal emails clearly show that FDA staff leave the agency to work at Big Pharma – and on their way out the door, they are given instructions about how to still peddle control from their new careers in the private drug and vaccine sector.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests produced emails to show how the FDA actually gives these outgoing employees a guidance explaining how they can work “behind the scenes” to run the FDA despite the fact that such post-employment lobbying may be illegal.

“The FDA’s ethics staff proactively informed these departing employees that although U.S. law prohibits certain types of lobbying contact ‘they do not prohibit the former employee from other activities, including working ‘behind the scenes,'” reported The Exposé (United Kingdom).

(Related: The FDA knew all along about Wuhan coronavirus [COVID-19] “vaccine” shedding but withheld this deadly truth from the American public.)

FDA advises outgoing employees to break the law

One of the names revealed in the probe is Doran Fink, a former FDA employee who worked at the agency for more than 12 years as a physician-scientist. During the COVID “pandemic,” Fink reviewed the so-called “vaccines.” After the “pandemic” was over, Fink moved on to work at Moderna, the very company whose chemical injections he reviewed for emergency use authorization (EUA).

As for the restrictions that were applied to Fink upon his departure from the FDA, emails obtained by the BMJ through FOIA show that they were specifically “tailored to your situation.” Though illegal, the FDA’s ethics department told Fink that “they do not prohibit the former employee from other activities, including working ‘behind the scenes.'”

Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the organization Public Citizen, told the BMJ that a “critical, critical loophole” exists in the U.S. as it pertains to revolving door policies.

“They can even run a lobbying campaign, as long as they don’t actually pick up the telephone and make the contact with their former officials – and that’s exactly the advice that’s being given here,” Holman said.

Another former FDA officer by the name of Jaya Goswami was reportedly given the same advice as Fink on her way out the door. Just like Fink, Goswami reviewed Moderna’s mRNA COVID injection before conveniently leaving and going to work for Big Pharma.

In trying to justify the errant advice being dispensed by the FDA’s ethics department, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) head Peter Lurie revealed that “it does seem contrary to the public interest that an ex-official would be quarterbacking activities behind the scenes, especially for a ‘particular matter’ on which they had worked,” which is clearly what has been happening at the FDA for many years.

Peter Doshi, BMJ’s senior editor, is credited with putting together the eye-opening report. The fact that it was even published at all shows just how much progress has been made in recent years to get the truth out via reputable sources.

It was not that long ago when talking about the FDA’s revolving door was reserved mostly to conspiracy websites. To see something like this published in the BMJ is somewhat historic if you really think about.

The latest news about the highly corrupt FDA can be found at FDA.news.

Sources for this article include:

• Expose-News.com
• NaturalNews.com

What if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was originally setup as a front group for the pharmaceutical industry, and its legal and scientific processes were fabricated to only benefit specific drug makers?

What if the FDA was intended to be a mafia working on behalf of certain pharmaceutical companies?

What if the agency was nothing more than a false authority that was allotted power because the agency was used to pressure Congress into giving Big Pharma dominance over the people of the United States?

What if the FDA used empty office buildings – no technicians, no equipment, no sampling, no oversight – as an affront of regulatory oversight?

What if testing and regulations for biologics (vaccines) never existed in the first place?

For biologics, the FDA is an affront to the scientific method, a façade of regulatory oversight

A paralegal from Pennsylvania – Katherine Watt – is raising serious questions about the history of the FDA and the NIH. According to Watt, since World War II, the U.S. Congress has been passing legislation that makes it easier for the pharmaceutical industry to destroy people’s lives, using the FDA as a front.

As the lies surrounding the covid-19 scandal continue to be exposed, more people across academia, medicine, government, science and the legal system continue to question the history and the motivations of Big Pharma and the federal government. If widespread medical and scientific malfeasance can be swept under the rug today, what other criminal conspiracies have taken place, with government agencies getting away with fraud and mass murder?

How are government agencies used to protect criminal organizations, and how might regulators be used by Big Pharma mafias to destroy the lives of whistleblowers and truth-tellers? If the head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease can change the definition of gain-of-function research to develop bioweapons offshore, then what other acts have occurred where government officials tortured the language and used legalese to coverup crimes against humanity?

The pre-1972 statutory and regulatory history of U.S. public health agencies is riddled with clues to mass deception, fraud and coverups. In 1973, the regulation of biological products was transferred from the NIH Division of Biologics Standards to the FDA Bureau of Biologics. This is historically important, as the FDA would go on to consolidate a set of biological product manufacturing non-regulations in the Federal Register.

The FDA’s façade of regulatory oversight exposed

During an email exchange recently, Katherine Watts raised the question “Why are they (NIH and FDA officials) lying” about the statutory and/or administrative origins of biologics regulation?

When modern day NIH and FDA employees tried to explain the origin of the biological product and vaccine manufacturing regulatory systems, their stories did not match the text of the statutes they cite.

She believes the FDA owns a network of empty office buildings without technical staff, lab equipment or processing procedures. These physical locations, setup from 1973 and onward, provide mailing addresses so that vaccine manufacturers can fill out fake forms, including establishment license application (ELA) and the product license application (PLA).

The ELA and PLA were eventually consolidated into a biologics license application (BLA) in the mid 1990s, eliminating the requirements for establishment inspections and licensing, and obfuscating responsibility at the factories by breaking up the “responsible head” so that no one would be held responsible in the end.

Her analysis also suggests that the factory employees are just paper pushers with no scientific knowledge or responsibility. They carry out the task of producing the toxic formulas, putting them in vials and slapping labels on them, before sending out application forms to the FDA’s empty-building addresses. Once the application forms arrive at the addresses, more paper pushers file them away until they are shredded a few years later. Today, the addresses are used for electronic transfer purposes, to make it appear that there is regulatory oversight at the FDA. However, there are no technicians in the buildings, and no equipment nor sample testing.

Dr. Michael Yeadon, one of the first medical professionals to warn about the fraud and devastation to come from COVID-19 vaccines, commented on Mrs. Watt’s assertions.

“It looks like deception may have been going on a very long time before “covid vaccines” were a thing.” he writes.

If Katherine Watt is right, there are entire administrative processes that exist only on paper, but there are no staff overseeing the technical aspects implied. Effectively, no practical regulation of vaccines (safety, efficacy, and quality) has ever existed. Nothing would surprise me anymore. After all, as I have said repeatedly, there are in the “covid-19 vaccines” numerous, independent, unnecessary and (to those with relevant expertise) obvious toxicity risks, none of which have been evaluated (because they’re intentional, they’re there by design).

The vaccine industry has been a ruse for decades, long before covid-19 vaccines were fraudulently pushed into the marketplace.

Sources include:

• Expose-News.com
• Bailiwicknews.substack.com
• Bailiwicknews.substack.com
• Telegram.com

During oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the justices questioned whether doctors’ claims to harm were sufficient to justify their challenge to the agency’s removal of regulations on the abortion drug mifepristone in 2016 and 2021. The OB/GYNs and emergency room doctors who brought the case argue that women are more likely to require medical treatment as a result of removing safety standards, putting them in a position where they may have to surgically finish an incomplete chemical abortion in violation of their conscience to address complications.

In 2021, the FDA enabled mifepristone to be distributed through the mail and removed the requirement for an initial in-person visit. In 2016, the agency removed many of the other safeguards put in place when the pill was approved in 2000, such as allowing it to be used through ten weeks of pregnancy instead of seven.

“This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule, or any other federal government action,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch, pointing to a recent “rash of universal injunctions” that run contrary to how the court has historically granted relief.

“There are exactly zero universal injunctions that were issued during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 12 years in office — pretty consequential ones,” Gorsuch said. “And over the last four years or so, the number is something like 60, maybe more than that. They’re a relatively new thing.”

The Fifth Circuit narrowed in August a district court’s earlier injunction requiring the FDA to reverse its initial approval of the pill. The appeals court held that the doctors’ initial challenge to the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug was untimely, but agreed that the agency “failed to address several important concerns” when it loosened restrictions on mifepristone after 2016.

Pro-life advocates and abortion activists are holding competing rallies outside the Supreme Court ahead of oral arguments this morning in the abortion pills case. @DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/0qtVjv9BGb

— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) March 26, 2024

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether relief could be more narrowly tailored to deal with the doctor’s specific conscience objections. Chief Justice Roberts made a similar point.

“Why can’t the court specify that this relief runs to precisely the parties before the court, as opposed to looking to the agency in general?” Roberts questioned.

Justices Amy Coney Barret, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor carefully probed the specifics of the doctors’ conscience objections.

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Erin Hawley, who argued for the doctors, pointed to Dr. Ingrid Skop and Dr. Christina Francis as the best examples. Skop wrote in her declaration filed with the court that the FDA’s actions may force her to “end the life of a human being in the womb for no medical reason,” noting she has “cared for at least a dozen women who have required surgery to remove retained pregnancy tissue after a chemical abortion.

Kagan noted that most hospitals have “mechanisms in place” to allow doctors to voice their objections.

Justice Samuel Alito questioned what potential plaintiffs would have standing if the doctors do not. He said the government’s argument leaves the American people with “no remedy” for the FDA violating the law.

“Your argument is that it doesn’t matter if FDA flagrantly violated the law, didn’t do what it should have done, endangered the health of women — that’s just too bad,” he told Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. “Nobody can sue in court.”

“Do you think the FDA is infallible?” he later asked. Jackson made the reverse point, questioning whether courts have the authority to reconsider the judgements of expert agencies.

Justice Clarence Thomas voiced questions of potential violations of the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits mailing of any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.”

“My problem is that you are private,” he told the attorney for abortion pill maker Danco Laboratories. “The statute doesn’t have this sort of safe harbor that you are suggesting … It specifically covers drugs such as yours.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

The incidence of febrile seizures was 2.5 times higher among children zero to one day after a Moderna shot, compared to the same children eight to 63 days after vaccination, the researchers said.

That risk was “significantly elevated,” they wrote in a preprint paper describing the results.

There was also a higher risk for febrile seizures zero to one day after receipt of a Pfizer-BioNTech dose, compared to the same 8–63 day window following vaccination, but that elevated risk was not statistically significant.

Richard Forshee, deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, and other researchers conducted the self-controlled case series by analyzing data from commercial databases. The data came from CVS Health, Optum, and Carelon Research. The children were 2 to 5 years old.

Fever is a common side effect of the COVID-19 vaccines. Some 19 percent of children aged 2 to 3, for instance, in Pfizer’s clinical trial suffered fever after a second dose. Fever may result in some cases in febrile seizures, health officials said.

The study was carried out after the researchers identified seizures/convulsions as a safety signal among children aged 2 to 4 following receipt of Pfizer’s shot and among children aged 2 to 5 after a Moderna jab. Further research was needed because the method of identification, near real-time surveillance, “was designed to be sensitive but not specific for screening and detection purposes,” the researchers said. Febrile seizures became the focus because most of the cases identified in the prior study were seizures of that type.

The two-day window utilized in the new study ensures the seizure cases “are more likely to be associated with vaccination rather than other causes,” the researchers said.

There were 88 febrile seizures after the Pfizer vaccination among the study population. Seven of those cases happened the day of, or the day after, vaccination.

There were 67 cases after the Moderna vaccination. Ten happened in the two-day window.

Seizures that happened two to seven days after vaccination were excluded from the primary analysis.

In a secondary analysis, using a longer risk interval within seven days of vaccination, researchers identified 103 febrile seizures and 135 seizures/convulsions after Pfizer vaccination, including 22 febrile seizures and 32 seizures/convulsions within seven days of a shot. The secondary analysis showed 78 febrile seizures and 106 seizures/convulsions after Moderna vaccination, including 21 febrile seizures and 28 seizures/convulsions in the longer risk interval.

No statistically significant findings showed up for that secondary analysis, or any other secondary analyses, after researchers applied adjustments to the data.

Exclusions included children who received more doses than approved. Researchers analyzed data from the Carelon database from June 2022 to February 2023, from June 2022 to March 2023 from the CVS database, and from June 2022 to May 2023 in the Optum database.

The FDA authorized new versions of vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax in late 2023, relying on clinical trial data from just 50 humans. Those currently available versions are not covered by the research.

The FDA funded the new study. Limitations of the research included the small number of cases, according to the researchers.

Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, who was not involved in the research, agreed. “These small numbers are not large enough for a reliable statistical analysis, which makes the paper scientifically weak,” Dr. Risch told The Epoch Times in an email.

The corresponding author, Mr. Forshee, did not respond to a request for comment. The FDA declined to comment. Moderna and Pfizer did not return inquiries.

Despite the finding of elevated risk, the researchers claimed that “based on the current body of scientific evidence, the safety profile of the monovalent mRNA vaccines remains favorable for use in young children.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was preparing to issue an alert about postvaccination myocarditis, or heart inflammation, through its Health Alert Network in May 2021. But that plan changed after meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), according to the emails.

“The initial draft is with Rochelle now,” Sherri Berger, a top CDC official, wrote in an email on May 26, 2021. Dr. Rochelle Walensky was the CDC’s director at the time.

Hours later, a CDC spokesperson, Abbigail Tumpey, informed colleagues and officials with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that “we are still discussing the strategy on this topic.”

“However, after discussions internally and with FDA, we will likely [redacted],” she wrote. “Our team is on a call with FDA now. I will share the messaging shortly.”

Ms. Tumpey later emailed to say that the CDC had opted to issue a document called clinical considerations rather than an alert.

The CDC issued the online considerations on May 28, 2021. They stated that “increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna)” but that every person aged 12 years and up should still get vaccinated.

Ms. Berger and Ms. Tumpey, both of whom have since left the CDC, did not respond to requests for comment.

The FDA did not deny influencing the decision not to send the alert.

“The FDA continues to work collaboratively with the CDC to monitor for known safety risks related to vaccines and determine how best to ensure any relevant safety information is conveyed to the public, health care providers and clinicians,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “After thorough assessment and when the potential risk was clear, the FDA updated the fact sheets for the COVID-19 vaccines and communicated with the public in a manner that was determined to be appropriate for the assessed risk.”

The FDA, which authorized the Pfizer and Moderna shots, did not add warnings about myocarditis until June 25, 2021.

A CDC spokesperson declined to say why the CDC decided not to send an alert. The spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email that the same audience of healthcare providers received the considerations but did not supply any evidence supporting that claim.

Documents previously acquired by The Epoch Times showed that the CDC and FDA were aware of post-vaccination myocarditis cases by February 2021, including a “large number” of patients in Israel and cases among the U.S. military.

The emails about the CDC-FDA call were obtained by The Daily Clout through a FOIA request. The CDC alert was planned to be targeted at emergency departments “rather than a broad advisory,” another email showed.

Prepared to Review

Other emails from the same tranche showed that two top officials in President Joe Biden’s administration asked, and were going to be able to, review the warning before it was sent out.

Dr. Rachel Levine, the administration’s assistant secretary for health, and Dawn O’Connell, the administration’s assistant secretary for preparedness and response, were going to be sent a draft of the alert after Dr. Walensky reviewed it, according to the emails.

“Dawn and Sarah need an early heads up and to see the language before hand,” Ms. Berger wrote in one missive, referring to Ms. O’Connell and Sarah Boateng, another official with the Department of Health and Human Services.

“I would also very much appreciate the opportunity to see the HAN before it is final,” Dr. Levine wrote.

“Initial draft with Walensky now. Flagging that you’d like to review as well,” Ms. Berger replied.

Dr. Levine was also in touch separately with Dr. Walensky on myocarditis, promoting claims that the heart inflammation might be unrelated to the vaccines.

“Myocarditis with COVID-19 is uncommon and even more uncommon with the vaccines- if it is associated at all with the vaccines,” Dr. Levine wrote after meeting with doctors from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Still, the AAP experts conveyed that “significant risks that can be associated with adolescent myocarditis” and that youth with the heart inflammation should be placed under exercise limitations for at least three months, according to the emails.

The AAP put out guidance around the same time that encouraged people to get vaccinated despite the apparent risk of heart inflammation. It has since deleted that guidance but still maintains a similar position.

In another call with the AAP, experts shared that “the cases are infrequent and mild and seem to resolve without treatment,” Dr. Levine wrote. In reality, a number of the cases do not resolve for months, if at all.

“Wow, thank you so much for this super helpful engagement,” Dr. Walensky said in a reply. The CDC planned to meet with the AAP on the matter, according to the emails.

Dr. Levine was later invited as a panelist for a call with public health partners to discuss the myocarditis cases, other missives showed.

Dr. Levine and the AAP did not respond to requests. A spokesperson for Ms. O’Connell declined to comment.

When a little-known pharmaceutical company named Moderna was awarded $4.94 billion under Operation Warp Speed, the company suddenly wielded great influence over the regulatory bodies of the federal government. In fact, two high-level regulatory officials at the FDA took up new positions at Moderna just months after they granted Moderna a full licensure for their COVID-19 vaccines and booster shots. This corruption was brought to light thanks to an investigation by Peter Doshi, who published it in the British Medical Journal.

The revolving door of collusion between our government and Big Pharma

Moderna now employs former FDA employees who carelessly approved Moderna’s dangerous mRNA experiments.

Dr. Doran Fink

The first FDA vaccine regulator who went to work for Moderna is Dr. Doran Fink. Dr. Fink was a vaccine regulator at the FDA for more than 12 years; he was a “physician/scientist experienced in regulation and clinical development/licensure of vaccines and related biological products.” Back in 2010, Dr. Fink began his career with the FDA as a clinical reviewer. Soon, he worked his way up to becoming the Deputy Director of the Division of Vaccine and Related Product Applications within the FDA’s Office of Vaccine Research and Review.

When COVID-19 propaganda and lockdowns were in full force, Dr. Fink was up front pushing the experimental COVID-19 vaccines and all the lockdowns, isolation and coercion that went along with the program. He also helped designate which population groups should receive the shots first. He attended numerous FDA meetings arguing for the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines and an onslaught of new boosters. Dr. Fink headed up a senior leadership team for COVID-19 vaccine review and coordinated policies that subjugated, coerced, bribed and segregated individuals in order to increase vaccine uptake in the population. Most importantly, Dr. Fink engaged in a “senior level review” for the FDA’s emergency use authorization and licensure of the COVID-19 vaccines. He would go on to approve medical fraud, which included the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

After essentially granting Moderna a license to kill, Dr. Fink left his post at the FDA in December 2022. By February 2023, he started working for Moderna as the head of “Translational Medicine and Early Clinical Development, Infectious Diseases.” Now he helps the company come up with new, dangerous vaccine experiments that will one day be granted full FDA approval because Dr. Fink has tremendous influence over his colleagues at the FDA.

Dr. Java Goswami

The second FDA official to take advantage of her government position and influence is Dr. Jaya Goswami. In March of 2020, Dr. Goswami worked as a medical officer at the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Her role was to oversee the development of the COVID-19 vaccine in record time. Her responsibilities included having “broad oversight over vaccines and biologics clinical development.”

Dr. Goswami ultimately got to determine whether the clinical data for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine met the regulatory standards set by the FDA. By January 2022, Dr. Goswami helped grant a full FDA approval for Moderna’s Spikevax. By June 2022, Dr. Goswami left the FDA and began a job with Moderna as the director of clinical development in infectious diseases. Now Dr. Goswami helps develop new mRNA vaccines, which are on the fast track for FDA approval, because she has all the right connections at the FDA.

Kim Witczak, a global pharmaceutical drug safety advocate and member of the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, spoke with The Epoch Times about the corruption at the FDA and the need for a cooling off period to stall the corruption between industry and government. “The recurring issue of the revolving door culture between industry and regulators has long been a concern and raises questions about regulatory impartiality,” she said. “A troubling trend is the intentional career move of making a stop at a regulatory agency, with the real payoff occurring when they transition to drug company roles. While this might benefit the pharmaceutical industry, it poses risks to public health. The worry arises about potential bias in regulating practices, including being lenient in criticism or overlooking safety concerns.”

Sources include:

• TheEpochTimes.com
• BMJ.com

The new Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 injections have been approved by the FDA. Full-approval was given to inject into arms of people over 12-years-old and Emergency Use Authorization covers them for jabbing babies as young as six-months-old.

That’s all bad enough, but it gets worse. The new jabs are NOT designed for the current dominant variants. These jabs were built for the XBB.1.5 subvariant, which has basically died out. If the name sounds familiar, it could be because Jimmy Fallon made a fool of himself singing an ode to the subvariant eight months ago.

One might think they’re unleashing this onto the nation because these jabs work better than the previous ones. Nope. Pfizer and Moderna are proud that the antibody response of the new injections are “similar” to the old ones. You know, the ones that didn’t stop infection, didn’t slow spread, didn’t prevent hospitalizations, and increased death rates.

We really are living in a clown world.

Here’s an article generated from corporate media reports by Discern Reporter:

U.S. drug regulators authorized new COVID-19 vaccines on September 11 in an effort to address the current vaccines’ poor effectiveness. The FDA cleared the shots from Moderna and Pfizer, which will be available to Americans as young as 6 months old later this month. Vaccination continues to be crucial for public health and protection against severe consequences of COVID-19.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were approved for individuals aged 12 and older, with emergency authorization granted for those aged 6 months to 11 years. Novavax’s vaccine was not mentioned in the authorization. The authorized shots target the XBB.1.5 subvariant of the Omicron virus variant, although this subvariant has already been largely replaced by newer strains such as EG.5.

The authorizations were granted based on studies that showed neutralizing antibody levels comparable to the previous versions of the vaccines. The CDC will meet with its advisers to determine which populations should receive the new vaccines, with the federal government covering the cost if recommended.

While many countries have advised younger and healthy individuals against COVID-19 vaccination due to the decrease in cases, the CDC is considering recommending annual COVID-19 shots. Pfizer and Moderna have stated that the new shots will cost around $110 to $130.

The number of shots required varies based on age group and prior vaccination. Individuals aged 5 years and older are eligible for a single dose, while children aged 6 months to 4 years who have been previously vaccinated can receive one or two doses. Children in that age group who have not been vaccinated can receive three doses of the new Pfizer vaccine or two doses of the new Moderna vaccine.

The FDA expects to update the vaccines annually, similar to influenza vaccines. However, some experts have criticized the authorization of the new shots due to the lack of strong data. They argue that booster doses should be focused on individuals at higher risk of severe disease.

They’re not even trying to pretend like these are going to work. They’re just relying on the sheep to roll up their sleeves and obey. Considering the vast majority of Americans chose to get jabbed the first time, perhaps there’s no need for Big Pharma or the FDA to try a different approach.

Sound off about this on my Substack.

This isn’t just a  taste of food tyranny. This should be the lead story for evidence that the FDA, USDA, and all federal government agencies involved in food tyranny must be dissolved completely. They’re not here to protect us. They’re only here to protect the globalist agenda.

Here’s a report from Twitter user Inversionism:

The USDA and FDA should be considered terrorist organizations for what they do continually to small farmers and businesses.

Similar to the Rawesome raid, these farmers were doing what’s called a cow share, where people in the community all pay up front and invest in a cow for milk or meat. This has been done by numerous farms all across the country as a means to avoid using meat processors and big business to just to get clean, properly raised, healthy food, without all the extra fees and government bullshit attached. It’s the perfect business model that supports local farmers and cuts out the criminal corporations and captured government orgs.

As expected, the USDA and FDA can’t have any of that happening because they are too busy allowing heavy metals, pesticides, plastics, and forever chemicals in your food, or rubber stamping toxic COVID vaccines for your 6 month old child, so they went to this farm and took all his meat in fridges and freezers, took it to the dump, and threw it all away with a court injunction because he refused to listen to their unconstitutional dictates.

This is the same food he fed his family with, but they didn’t care. Thousands and thousands of dollars of nutrient dense quality animal foods, all thrown away.

The FDA and USDA both need to be completely dissolved. They don’t protect public health. They destroy it.

Infuriating.

There was a time not too long ago when many if not most of the people who worked for the USDA or FDA did so because they had good jobs that were designed to protect Americans. But like so many agencies, departments, and bureaus within our federal government, the mission has morphed into one dedicated to tyranny. Perhaps many of the government employees are unaware. A whole lot of them have been indoctrinated into the “greater good” mentality that allows otherwise lucid people to unhinge themselves from the realities of their situation. Then, there are those who know some of what they do is wrong but they’re just following orders.

Like the IRS and FBI, both the FDA and USDA should be revamped or scrapped altogether. The only reason I even offer revamping as a possibility is because there are far too many Americans who flinch when they hear people like me calling to disband entire government agencies. Therefore, a top-down overhaul is weak but may be the only viable option.

Of course, I’m ignoring the sad reality that nothing will be done. Most of us will vent our outrage online or even at protests but we’ll go unheard and our representatives in DC will do nothing about it. Food security is under attack. What’s happening to Golden Valley Farms is one example of many to come. Our government is cornering the market on food for a reason, and it’s not to protect us against an Amish farmer who has been butchering beef for people without incident for a long time.

“Who controls the food supply controls the people.” — Henry Kissinger

This is just one of many reasons we partnered with Prepper All Naturals to offer high-quality survival beef to our audience. We benefit when you buy from them but we would be recommending for people to stock up on food with or without a sponsor. It’s that important.

Take advantage of 15% off by using promo code “stockup” at checkout.

Sound off about this story on my Substack.

We saw this in action recently with the lambasting of anyone who said Democrats were going after gas stoves. Those of us reporting on it a few months ago were called every anti-journalist name in the book. We were fact-checked into oblivion, “debunked” by “experts,” and ridiculed for fearmongering. Then, of course, we were proven right. Corporate media effortlessly shifted from “they’re not coming after gas stoves” to “here’s why you should be thankful they’re outlawing gas stoves.”

Some would argue this isn’t new, that conspiracy theories have been proven correct for decades, even centuries. But the new aspect of the phenomenon is how quickly the narrative changes. They’re not moving slowly, allowing years as they have in the past for old lies to be replaced by new lies. Today, they can shift in a matter of weeks. Sometimes they shift in days as yesterday’s “debunked” reporting becomes the accepted reality tomorrow.

Revisionist history has been replaced by revisionist reporting. Today, we’re as close as we’ve ever been to George Orwell’s  Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It was important to understand this because the latest bit of news about Pandemic Panic Theater ties in perfectly. Less than a month ago, corporate media was instructed to let people know Covid-19 vaccine recommendations had been updated to minimize the number of people getting boosters as well as the number of boosters they should get. Now, they’re getting us ready for another round of boosters this fall, only this time they’re using a different formula.

Here are the details from Mac Slavo over at SHTF Plan:

FDA Discusses Covid-19 “Vaccine” Boosters for the Fall

More rounds of the ineffective and unsafe COVID-19 “vaccines” are coming. The Food and Drug Administration is now discussing which variants the mRNA booster shots will target.

The FDA  claims that time is of the essence. It needs to pick which strain or strains, it thinks will be prevalent later this year, so drugmakers have enough time to manufacture the new shots. Big pharma will certainly be ready to profit from the injections.

According to a report from mainstream media outlet, NBC News, this will be only the second time that the COVID vaccines have been updated. Last year, the FDA authorized new shots that targeted both the original coronavirus strain as well as the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants, two strains that are no longer in circulation in the United States. The first round of the “vaccines”, which were authorized in December 2020, only targeted the original coronavirus.

As of Saturday, XBB.1.5 is the dominant strain circulating in the United States, making up roughly 40% of all new Covid cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s followed by XBB.1.16 (dubbed “Arcturus” on social media) and XBB.1.9.1, which make up about 18% and 12% of all new cases, respectively. The XBB strains haven’t caused a surge in cases as much as previous variants.  –NBC News

FDA scientists claimed that “real-world” studies show that although the currently updated boosters in use in the U.S. do provide protection against XBB.1.5, the antibodies generated appear to be lower than what’s seen against BA.4 and BA.5.

“These data suggest that an updated strain composition of Covid-19 vaccines to more closely match currently circulating Omicron sublineages is warranted for the 2023–2024 vaccination campaign,” the scientists wrote.

Expect the ruling class to try once again to push these injections on the masses. There is plenty of evidence that the more injections one has had, the higher the chances of dying of “COVID”.

• Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence; 76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was 97.2%
• The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization, which allegedly based its guidance on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China. But venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival. It was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the vent machine
• Data suggest around 10,000 patients died with COVID in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020. Other metropolitan areas also saw massive spikes in deaths among younger individuals who were at low risk of dying from COVID. It’s possible many of these deaths were the result of being placed on mechanical ventilation
• The WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected COVID patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local input
• Showing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from COVID is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty

Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence.¹

By early April 2020, many doctors were already questioning their use, as data² showed 76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was a whopping 97.2%.

If you were older than 65, you were 26 times more likely to survive if you were NOT placed on a vent.³ A small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%,⁴ and in Texas, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.⁵

In a widely-shared YouTube video⁶ (above) posted March 31, 2020, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, a critical care specialist at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, warned that “we must change what we are doing if we want to save as many lives as possible.” Sidell was adamant that doctors were “treating the wrong disease” and that putting COVID patients on mechanical ventilation was all wrong.

“We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue,” Sidell said. “I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time … This method being widely adopted at this very moment at every hospital in the country … is actually doing more harm than good.”

Why Were COVID Patients Put on Vents?

The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization,⁷ which in early March 2020 published a COVID-19 provider guidance⁸ document to health care workers, based on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China.

According to the WHO, treatment needed to be rapidly escalated to mechanical ventilation. Ideally, patients should be placed on it immediately.⁹ What escaped the public was the primary reason why. Venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival; rather, it was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the mechanical vent machine.

Using less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of infectious aerosols, the WHO warned. In other words, they put patients to death to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients. That ventilation and sedation were used to protect hospital staff was highlighted by The Wall Street Journal in a December 20, 2020, article,¹⁰ which noted:

“Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply.

Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don’t require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich.

At the time, he said, doctors and nurses feared the virus would spread through hospitals. ‘We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients,’ Dr. Iwashyna said. ‘That felt awful.’”

As dryly noted by James Lyons-Weiler in a January 23, 2023, Substack article,¹¹ “euthanizing humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients. It should feel awful.”

Fauci Knew Vents Did More Harm Than Good

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, in a mid-June 2022 lecture (above), admitted that placing patients on mechanical ventilation did more harm than good.

“We very, very readily would put people on mechanical ventilation, when we found out, through clinical experience, it might have been better just to make sure we positioned them properly in the prone or supine position, and not necessarily to intubate someone so readily, which might have actually caused more harm than good. We learned that as we got more experience.”

Yet government treatment guidelines, to this day, include invasive mechanical ventilation.¹² If the White House Coronavirus Task Force knew in the summer of 2022 that venting patients caused more harm than good, why didn’t they instruct hospitals to stop using it? Or at bare minimum, strongly advise against it?

And why did the government continue to financially incentivize the use of mechanical ventilation after they’d realized how bad it was? While many hospitals did cut down on their use of mechanical ventilation toward the end of 2020 and beyond, it still hasn’t been entirely replaced with noninvasive strategies shown to be far more effective.¹³

Many ‘COVID Patients’ Didn’t Have COVID

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing. They didn’t have COVID but were vented anyway, thanks to the baseless theory that you could have COVID-19 and be infectious without symptoms.

Hospitals also received massive financial incentives to diagnose patients with COVID — whether they had it or not — and to put them on a vent. They also received bonuses for using toxic remdesivir, and they were paid for each COVID death as well. The entire system was set up to reward hospitals for misdiagnosing, mistreating and ultimately killing patients.

China also benefited from the WHO’s misguided advice. While the U.S. clamored for more ventilators, Chinese hospitals started relying on them less and instead they were being exported in huge quantities.¹⁴

How Many COVID Patients Were Killed by WHO’s Bad Advice?

Just how many COVID-19 patients were killed by being placed on mechanical ventilation in the spring of 2020? That’s a question attorney and author Michael P. Senger tries to answer in his May 25, 2023, article “The Great COVID Ventilator Death Coverup.”¹⁵ He writes, in part:

“… the establishment is trying to argue that while ventilators were overused in spring 2020, doing more harm than good … the ventilators themselves did not kill anyone.¹⁶ An astonishing argument, even by the abysmal standards of the COVID era.

But, since everyone supporting this narrative is arguing that there were no ventilator deaths in spring 2020, all we have to do is prove there were a significant number of ventilator deaths and what’s left of the establishment’s credibility on the initial months of COVID falls apart.

In addition to the anecdotal evidence … several unsettling data points have long strongly suggested that there weren’t just some ventilator deaths in spring 2020, but rather a pretty frightening number of them …

The CDC reports¹⁷ that 18,679 patients died with COVID in New York City hospitals throughout spring 2020. And, according to the sample in JAMA,¹⁸ just over half of those who died with COVID in NYC hospitals were put on ventilators. Accordingly, around 10,000 patients died with COVID in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020 …

Additionally, as Jessica Hockett has documented¹⁹ in meticulous detail through multiple methods, New York City experienced a sharp, breathtaking mortality event just after its lockdown and response to COVID began, which was unlike that experienced anywhere else or at any other time.

Given its singularity, this horrifying mortality event, quite simply, cannot be attributed to natural causes. Jumping off Hockett’s work, below is a chart of weekly all-cause hospital inpatient mortality from January 2018 through April 2023, split between patients ages 65+ (blue line) and patients under 65 (red line).

This spike in inpatient hospital mortality in New York City in spring 2020, especially among young people, is unparalleled in any other time period, even as COVID deaths supposedly began to climb again in 2021.”

Inpatient Mortality Around the US, 2020 Through Present

Senger goes on to show the same all-cause mortality graphs for hospital inpatients for each of the largest cities in the U.S.: Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. All show massive spikes in hospital deaths, especially among the elderly (65 and older), around the same time periods as NYC. He also produced charts for deaths on the state level, as follow:²⁰

A Strawman Argument

Senger continues:²¹

“A couple of points on these charts. First, while the spike in mortality in the NYC area in spring 2020, especially among young people, is without parallel, it’s not the only one we see.

These spikes in mortality among young people are conspicuous because it’s long been known that COVID’s infection fatality rate (IFR) is extremely skewed toward the elderly. This, for example, is the most widely-cited data on COVID’s IFR by age:²²

Thus, these spikes in mortality among young people cannot be attributed to COVID. Most notably, a significant spike in mortality appears among all age groups in California at the end of 2020 …

One possibility is that, while the use of ventilators was generally scaled back, hospitals in California may have still been engaging in broad intubation or other iatrogenic practices by the end of 2020 …

Even more strangely, Texas experienced a surge in deaths among young people in summer 2021 that was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in mortality among the elderly; this, frankly, may have had nothing to do with COVID.

That said, the fact remains that the New York area experienced a uniquely sharp, awful mortality event in spring 2020 which is not adequately explained by any of these other factors.

And doctors were under significant pressure to put patients on ventilators in spring 2020, even if it was merely unconscious; politicians had purchased tens of thousands of ventilators at exorbitant prices, and hospitals did receive more funding if patients were placed on ventilators.

Coupled with the above anecdotes about patients being placed on ventilators for extended periods to protect staff — and the fact that over 10,000 patients in New York City died after being intubated — it’s clear that a horrifying number of patients were likely killed by mechanical ventilators.

Yet astonishingly, despite all these facts, the establishment is arguing that no patients were killed by ventilators in spring 2020. This, to me, is the kind of implausible, overly-defensive argument one makes when they’re panicked.

Across America, tens of thousands of patients were placed on ventilators in spring 2020; given the vast majority of those patients died, it simply begs credulity that none of them were killed by ventilators.

When a deadly procedure is applied to tens of thousands of patients, even a baseline level of human error would imply that the procedure was applied to at least some fraction of those patients by mistake.

The establishment has responded with subsequent studies²³ claiming to show that ‘early intubation’ actually reduced the time patients spent on ventilators, and thus didn’t kill any of them. But this is a straw-man argument …

[T]he issue isn’t whether patients were intubated ‘early’ or ‘late’ relative to any symptoms they might have shown — the issue is whether patients were placed on ventilators who should have never been on them to begin with, or otherwise kept on them too long.”

A Morally Indefensible Coverup

Senger points out that, in speaking with other attorneys, most agree that hospitals face virtually no risk of litigation over ventilator deaths, for the simple reason that everyone perceived COVID to be a global emergency, and during emergencies, you just do the best you can with what you have and what you know.

“Regardless of how much harm was done, it’s simply too difficult to prove that the procedure violated the emergency standard of care given the information coming from China at the time,” he writes.

Even so, “the situation is morally inexcusable,” Senger says, adding that we do need to get to the bottom of how and why these patients died. I agree. While Senger wants the truth to understand what happened and to honor the diseased, I would add that we need the truth in order to avoid making the same mistake again, because there will be a next time.

The WHO Must Be Held to Account

The WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected COVID patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local input.

Showing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from COVID is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty.

They simply cannot be trusted to make sound medical decisions for the whole world. No one is. We need to allow local medical experts to make the calls in situations like this, and to collaborate and share information between themselves. The top-down one-size-fits-all medical paradigm that the WHO wants to implement is nothing short of disastrous, and the COVID pandemic response proves it.

Also, let’s not forget that the misuse of mechanical ventilation created the appearance that COVID was exceptionally deadly, regardless of your age, which in turn helped promote acceptance of the experimental COVID shots that are now a leading cause of frequent sickness, chronic disability and excess deaths. Of course, that’s also being covered up.

In the final analysis, the WHO’s handling of the COVID pandemic will undoubtedly go down as the worst in medical history. Can we really trust them to make better decisions in the future?

I think not, which is why we must do everything in our power to prevent the U.S. from signing the pandemic treaty. Better yet, we need to exit the WHO entirely. To that end, I urge you to contact your local House representatives and Senators and urge them to:

1. Support the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act^{24,25,26,27,28}
2. Withhold funding for the WHO
3. Support U.S. withdrawal from the WHO

Sources and References:

• ¹ Medscape April 6, 2020
• ² JAMA April 22, 2020; 323(20): 2052-2059 Outcomes for Patients Who Were Discharged or Died
• ^{3, 15, 20, 21} Michaelpsenger.com May 25, 2023
• ⁴ The Associated Press April 8, 2020
• ⁵ Citizens Journal December 20, 2021
• ⁶ YouTube Cameron Kyle-Sidell March 31, 2020
• ⁷ The Dossier Substack September 30, 2020
• ⁸ WHO Clinical Management of Severe COVID-19
• ⁹ WHO Infection Prevention and Control for COVID
• ¹⁰ Wall Street Journal December 20, 2020
• ¹¹ Substack Popular Rationalism January 23, 2023
• ¹² NIH Covid Treatment Guidelines Updated April 20, 2023
• ¹³ Newswise April 23, 2020
• ¹⁴ NBC News April 30, 2020
• ¹⁶ AP May 19, 2023
• ¹⁷ CDC MMWR November 20, 2020; 69(46): 1725-1729
• ¹⁸ JAMA April 22, 2020; 323(20): 2052-2059
• ¹⁹ Woodhouse Substack April 18, 2023
• ²² European Journal of Epidemiology 2020; 35: 1123-1138
• ²³ Science Based Medicine September 19, 2021
• ²⁴ Tiffany.house.gov March 7, 2023
• ²⁵ No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act House Bill Full Text
• ²⁶ Congress.gov S.4343 — No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
• ²⁷ Congress.gov S.444 — No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
• ²⁸ Govtrack.us S.4343 — No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.