Discover more from The Forgotten Side of Medicine
The Federal Government Finally Admitted Corruption Crafted the COVID-19 Response
In the previous article, I reviewed how almost every single highly effective COVID-19 treatment had been buried by the federal government, while a variety of ineffective, unsafe and most importantly expensive treatments have been mandated. I detailed the exact mechanisms repeatedly employed to do this in order to illustrate how corruption is systemic within the branches of the federal government responsible for the scientific and medical policy of the United States.
From the feedback that article received, it appears this goal was accomplished, although the article was a bit lengthy and as there is a lot of corruption to even briefly cover. My aim in writing that article was to have it available before the Government Accountability Office report on the corruption within these agencies came out. That report has now been released.
Many branches of the federal government have a department assigned to ensuring that branch does not engage in corrupt behavior. For example, the HHS has its own Office of the Inspector General (OIG) assigned to this task. Unfortunately, in most cases, that OIG doesn’t really do anything, as discussed later in this article and highlighted by Steve Kirsch’s open letter to HHS’s current Inspector General. In most cases, when institutions “investigate” themselves, they sweep everything under the rug, which is problematic as the OIG’s belong to the same department they investigate.
As best as I can tell, the GAO, congress’s watchdog, has had the best track record for dealing with corruption in the federal government. This is likely due to the large number of unique checks and balances put in place to ensure it can. For those curious the process to select its director is as follows:
The GAO is headed by the Comptroller General of the U.S. The comptroller general is appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a fifteen-year, non-renewable term. The president selects a nominee from a list of at least three individuals recommended by an eight-member bipartisan, bicameral commission of congressional leaders. During such term, the comptroller general has standing to pursue litigation to compel access to federal agency information. The comptroller general may not be removed by the president, but only by Congress through impeachment or joint resolution for specific reasons. Since 1921, there have been only seven comptrollers general, and no formal attempt has ever been made to remove a comptroller general.
In a previous article, I detailed the decades of forced covert experimentation conducted in the military to develop the Anthrax vaccine. Over the decades of its use, this vaccine disabled over 100,000 servicemen and I believe ultimately was a beta test for the COVID-19 vaccine campaign as many of the same players and tactics were used in both campaigns.
The military did everything they could to cover up what was happening, and as the injuries mounted, gradually resorted to more and more forceful measures to continue administering the vaccine. Eventually, congressional hearings were conducted, and the GAO was assigned to the issue. As far as I know, despite decades of pleas, the GAO was the only government agency that fought for these veterans. The first section of Chapter 11 of Vaccine A (freely available here) for example details how the GAO had to fight tooth and nail with the evasive Department of Defense to get any information from them.
When the trillions of COVID-19 “relief” legislation was passed, a provision was included for the GAO to try and make sure corruption did not eat up those funds. For example, 24 days before Pfizer received an EUA for their vaccine, the GAO issued the following recommendation:
“The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the FDA Commissioner to identify ways to uniformly disclose to the public the information from FDA's scientific review of safety and effectiveness data, similar to the public disclosure of the summary safety and effectiveness data supporting the approval of new drugs and biologics, when issuing EUAs for therapeutics and vaccines, and, if necessary, seek the authority to publicly disclose such information.”
While this recommendation was not the most successful (the same day it was published, the FDA pledged to do so, but never really did anything; a federal judge forcing the release of the Pfizer papers a year later is one example of the agency’s continued stonewalling), the GAO has had much more success with other measures it has tried to implement to stem COVID-19 corruption. A full report of their work can be found here (for example the GAO has called out the CDC for failing to make critical data available to the public) and is summarized in this interview with the current Comptroller General, a surprisingly honest government official.
As you might imagine, I was hence eagerly anticipating the GAO’s report on corruption within these agencies that crafted the COVID-19 response. As that report is 38 pages, I will summarize the key points and put them into context.
The four agencies most responsible for crafting the COVID-19 response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) were surveyed by the GAO.
The GAO reported that employees at the FDA, CDC and NIH had told the GAO they observed incidents that they perceived to be political interference but did not report them. A few of those surveyed at the FDA and the CDC further stated: “they felt that the potential political interference they observed resulted in the alteration or suppression of scientific findings”
This is extremely important for two reasons. This is to my knowledge the first clear admission from a “credible” government agency that the COVID-19 response was crafted by corruption and not science. The second is that the sample size was very very small. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 employees working at the CDC, FDA, and NIH (who were chosen to be a representative samples of the personnel within these agencies), and a confidential tip line was made available for two months in a few select departments (with the GAO electing not to follow up on many of those tips, likely either to avoid controversy or because they were short staffed). The fact that a “few” of that tiny sample reported this occurring means a significant portion of the HSS, FDA and NIH knew this was happening.
One of Steve Kirsch’s missions has been to get a whistleblower from these agencies to come forward, and despite offering a lot of money for someone to do so, no one has. Given the GAO’s finding, I can only see one possible explanation: many potential whistleblowers exist that have observed this corruption in these agencies, but they have effectively been silenced.
The remainder of this article will discuss three key reasons for that silence.
The first is a direct fear for their lives. Certain strategies are repeatedly used throughout history to gain power (The 48 Laws of Power provides a good summary). One of them is to murder political opponents (often in a plausibly deniably manner) that makes it very clear to everyone that they were murdered. This makes it possible to expend a relatively low amount of resources (that needed to conduct and then “cover up” the assassination) in order to intimidate and control a large number of people.
Since this exponentially magnifies the power of those employing it, it is a very popular and successful strategy. This is commonly done by organized crime (such as the mafia and drug cartels) and is most frequently cited in reference to the Clinton body count. No one I know directly has had this happen to them, but I do know of a few friends of friends that were murdered for threatening the medical monopoly and a few others who were targeted by an opposing political faction fighting for control of a third world county.
Steve Kirsch has also shared one such example: “I have had some contact with people who would fit your search - however, it appears they are unwilling to share information because of the danger of offering the information…We have a client whose daughter had worked for the CDC but refused to sign an agreement to withhold information. She left her job and fled to an undisclosed location…She said she was too afraid to speak with anyone about it. She feared for her life and her family's lives.”
As far as I know, the only whistleblower who has ever come forward from the CDC (pertaining to the CDC covering up data showing the MMR vaccine caused autism in African American boys) had a torn conscience over what he was complicit in, something, and as the recent GAO investigation shows that was likely also experienced by many of his colleagues. This scientist eventually came forward, but only because outside activists he spoke to forced him to (the events are summarized here).
After delivering deleted documents corroborating his claims to a Congressman, he then was contacted by the CDC, became completely silent and provided a statement disavowing his previous claims. This is a 2015 video of the congressman demanding a congressional investigation of the CDC. Just imagine how much better things would be now if congress had listened to him seven years ago.
The second reason is that life rapidly goes downhill for whistleblowers. My next article will cover Economic Feudalism, and my belief that the fundamental goal of our current economic system is to gradually bring everyone into near poverty (ie. “you’ll own nothing and be happy”). As people move closer to poverty, they become easier and easier to control through money. The current economic system is designed to leverage financial incentives for behavioral control because efficient control of the population has always been the primary goal of the ruling elite.
In my opinion, one of the most important points made in the Real Anthony Fauci was that Fauci took control of the NIH’s grant system (which all public scientists now need for their basic survival) and weaponized it against dissent by banning anyone who challenged the party line from grants for the rest of their life. This has been a remarkably effective strategy and many feel has largely destroyed the progression of science in the United States.
One of my heroes, Peter Gøtzsche gave an excellent talk on the plight of a whistleblower at a 2018 recent conference.
For those of you who do not have time to watch the video, this is the key slide from his presentation:
For those who want to copy paste the slide: A Study of 223 whistleblowers by Donald Soeken of the St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washingont DC, found the average whistleblower was a family man in his forties with a strong conscience and high moral values.
After blowing the whistle on fraud, 90% of the whistleblowers were fired or demoted, 27% faced lawsuits, 26% had to seek psychiatric or physical care, 25% suffered alcohol abuse, 17% lost their homes, 15% got divorced, and 8% were bankrupted. But in spite of this, only 16% said they wouldn’t blow the whistle again.
Being a whistleblower is typically a terrible experience for the whistleblower, but as the above data shows, most whistleblowers who suffer these consequences have enough personal integrity they would choose to do the same thing again.
As everyone becomes more financially squeezed by the feudal economic system we are entering into, fewer and fewer whistleblowers can afford to come forward, something I believe is also by design. I have spoken with a few of the well known physicians taking large risks to speak out against the COVID-19 vaccines and I have noticed they share two unique characteristics that allow them to become whistleblowers:
•They are late in their lucrative careers and hence can survive losing their livelihoods.
•They have a strong faith in God and believe their duty to god is greater than their personal wellbeing (one for example in private stated he expected to eventually end up in jail but that was nothing compared to denying his faith).
The third explanation, the existence of systemic biases against the reporting of corruption was the one investigated by the GAO. What they found once again revealed the existence of systemic corruption within these agencies, and in my opinion, represents much more damning evidence than the previous survey results.
According to the GAO: “Respondents from CDC and FDA told us they did not report potential political interference in scientific decision-making because:
•They feared retaliation
• Being unsure how to report issues. Respondents from CDC and FDA stated they were not sure how to report the potential political interference in scientific decision-making they observed. For example, a CDC respondent told us they were not aware of any existing internal procedures that could be used to report potential political interference in scientific decision-making.
• Believing agency leaders were already aware. Respondents from CDC, FDA, and NIH stated they did not report potential political interference in scientific decision-making because they thought leadership was already aware of the issue.”
A quick analysis of the policies and procedures in place at these agencies was equally revealing:
These are very basic policies that represent the bare minimum that should be in place at every institution. For example, at every hospital I’ve worked at, there is mandatory training to identify any potential form of health care fraud (including very minor ones), and we are are taught the policy for confidentially reporting this fraud. Medicare (which all hospitals need to remain open) also mandates each hospital staffing a department to specifically process these complaints.
These policies exist everywhere because unless there is a framework in place to support whistleblower complaints (which includes defining what should be complained about), they never are made. Since fraud costs Medicare money, Medicare hence requires every hospital (which cannot survive without Medicare) to have a robust system in place for reporting health care fraud.
To quote the GAO: “The absence of specific procedures may explain why the four selected agencies did not identify any formally reported internal allegations of potential political interference in scientific decision-making from 2010 through 2021.”
This is somewhat similar to the situation described in the previous article where despite being required by law to do so, scientists in the NIH for years refused to declare their financial conflicts of interest in human research. Eventually a Freedom of Information Act filed by the Associated Press forced Fauci and 50 of his cohorts to do so (15 years later some of these “honest” scientists would mandate remdesivir for hospitalized COVID patients).
In 2005, when asked why they had never disclosed these conflicts of interest, the NIH scientists stated they just had not gotten around to making a policy for it, and no further questions were raised on the issue. This appears to be a frequent strategy within the DC bureaucracy.
Per the GAO: ”Officials at CDC and FDA told us that there was not a specific reason why CDC and FDA lack such procedures and that the agencies did not intentionally omit this information from their existing policies and procedures.”
As the GAO report highlights, scientific integrity is in the mission statement of each of these agencies, and there have been numerous presidential directives enacted to ensure this is followed. For example, in 2009 a presidential memorandum stressed the importance of scientific integrity in these agencies and assigned the Director of OSTP to produce a plan to ensure it would happen, which the OTSP did in 2010. A 2021 presidential memorandum also restated these goals and directed OTSP to form a new task force to accomplish these goals.
From reading between the lines in the 4/20/22 report, it appears that the GAO found the behavior towards scientific integrity at the CDC, FDA, NIH and ASPR to be appalling. At the same time, the GAO was massively underfunded in conducting this investigation (only 16 interviews were conducted!) and was making a large effort to not rock the boat (as COVID has created a climate where no one is allowed to question insane policies). The GAO hence was very careful about how directly it stated its conclusions.
As I continued to read the responses the GAO received from officials in each agency they confronted, it reminded me of what a relative had heard when she visited Communist China in the 1980s at a time when it was well known homosexuals were executed by the CCP.
“I once asked a public security officer if homosexuality was legal in China. I have never forgotten how he responded (in Chinese): ‘Of course homosexuality is legal in China, but we have no homosexuals in China.’ Based on his body language and tone of voice, I knew he fully supported those executions.”
Per the GAO:
•“We requested agency data from our selected agencies from 2010-2021 on internal allegations of political interference in scientific decision-making but did not receive data because the agencies told us they did not receive any such allegations during that time period.”
•“NIH officials stated their existing procedures do not address political interference in scientific decision-making because NIH has not experienced political interference.”
•“FDA officials told us that FDA does not train staff on how to report potential political interference because FDA did not receive any formally reported instances of potential political interference in the period between 2010 through 2021.”
Despite the fact I do not work at any of these agencies, even I can list numerous examples of political interference that occurred during this time.
I will conclude with one final quote illustrating this systemic corruption within the HHS:
”ASPR officials told us the agency does not have procedures for reporting and addressing political interference in scientific decision-making because it follows the HHS scientific integrity policy. However, HHS officials told us that the department does not have procedures for reporting and addressing potential political interference in scientific decision-making because it relies on its staff and operating divisions to report and address such issues. Agencies’ reliance on reporting and addressing potential political interference internally on a case-by-case basis or through existing internal scientific integrity procedures intended for other purposes may have led to an underreporting of political interference in scientific decision-making.”
For those wanting a concise summary of the GAO’s findings on the HSS to share with others, please use this image:
These issues are not new; they have existed for decades. There are many other signs besides this survey that the rank and file employees in the HSS recognize the corruption is widespread enough that they do not trust their agencies. For example, in congressional testimonies it has been repeatedly admitted that many employees at the CDC and FDA are not vaccinated (Fauci pegged the figure at 40-50%). My hope is that by bringing awareness to them, something can be done. At this point all we have is the GAO (which has always had a fraction of the support it needs to do its job properly).
The political will to reform the federal government is present right now. This is something we have not experienced for decades and need to take advantage of before the window to do so closes. If this report ever becomes public knowledge, I suspect the mainstream media will try to “debunk” it by claiming “political interference” exclusively referred to scientists being pressured by Trump’s political agenda.
Beyond the fact it is very obvious the GAO was discussing much more than that, there are a lot of problems with this argument. The primary one was that this argument (Trump suppressed signs COVID was problematic) would only apply to the CDC, and not the NIH, FDA or ASPR. Scott Atlas’s book also showed Trump was mostly powerless to override Fauci and Brix’s disastrous COVID policy.
I sincerely thank each of you for your support in reading and sharing the messages I am trying to bring forth on this substack; we are at one of those times in history where the narrative that eventually prevails will shape the course of human civilization decades into the future.
After publishing articles, I frequently receive comments from readers with first hand experience of these forgotten sides of medicine. Today I received this comment from a reader (who has advocated against euthanasia of older patients before it became mainstreams with COVID-19) they provided permission to share:
As a 3 time whistleblower in the health care industry, I can affirm that what you've shared is absolutely correct. Choosing to whistleblow is what people do in order to protect patients or people out in the community or the environment or whatever. Nobody wants to be a whistleblower and the decision to do so is only made after repeated attempts to get those in positions of power and leadership/management to simply follow the law, the standards of care, and not violate patients' rights or harm people.
While many others will say, "Yes, yes, yes" when speaking privately with those who have the will to stand up to corrupt leadership/management, they disappear the moment it goes public and the person who speaks up most often stands alone. Then, the laws against retribution are found to be powerless to stop retribution, because the agencies/corporations/etc simply consider any lawsuits or fines that might arise as a cost of doing business.
It is clear that those who speak up do so because they care about the people being harmed and seek to prevent it. They pay a price that many are not willing to pay, and they sacrifice much while their lives are changed forever. However, there are blessings in remaining true to our patients and the people and to God that are not represented in dollars or cents.
Thank you for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.