Lies My Gov't Told Me: And the Better Future Coming

by Robert W. Malone

As we have recently been warned from the New York Times, the CDC is now a political organization that has been hiding data from physicians, public health officers, and the public. They have been supporting what the executive branch wants to hear, by publishing that which they feel fits that narrative that vaccines are “safe and effective.” You know, not publishing data—so as to avoid “vaccine hesitancy.” As such, each and every author on the publication has a significant conflict of interest. This is a big red flag.

Then came the new variant called Omicron in early December 2021. This variant, although more infectious, was also much less pathogenic. In my opinion, vaccinating for a mild cold in the healthy, young person versus loss of significant quality of life issues, even in the short term, is unacceptable. By midspring, 2021, 99.5% of the cases in the USA were the Omicron variant, per the CDC. We know that for most healthy people, Omicron is nothing more than a cold and for the young is usually a very mild cold and often asymptomatic.

The risk of myocarditis to young men is much higher—we know this. The Hong Kong data show 1 in 2,700 in boys.

Frankly, the CDC is again obfuscating the data to suit their own political agenda. And the Lancet is letting the CDC get away with yet more propaganda cloaked as semiscience. This is unacceptable.

The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) was set up to address vaccine injuries associated with vaccines and other countermeasures during a pandemic or biothreat event. Due to specific federal legislation, a person cannot sue a manufacturer for an injury caused by a vaccine or other product listed as a countermeasure; they can only seek compensation from CICP by filing a claim. Shockingly, after 1.5 years after the rollout of gene therapy vaccines, the US government through CICP has only approved one claim and has yet to pay out a single

In order to fight corruption, we must first expose it. But when our government is determined to hide embarrassing data, obfuscate facts, and deny culpability, what chance do we have?

The government in the USA has agreed to provide liability for the vaccine-injured in this country, relieving the pharmaceutical industry of this burden. It is time they did their job and lived up to their obligations.

On page 17 of an internal CDC document published in a July 30, 2021, article in the Washington Post, the CDC notes that “Delta variant breakthrough cases may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases” [230]. The term “breakthrough cases” refers to people who get COVID-19 despite being fully vaccinated. The CDC makes that point again on page 22 of the document, and also notes that vaccines “may be less effective at preventing infection or transmission. . . . Therefore, more breakthrough and more community spread despite vaccination.”

Of the Delta variant cases, 655 patients died, and 402 of the patients who died, or 61 percent, were fully vaccinated.

The Delta variant also became the most dominant form of SARS-CoV-2 in Israel. As of August 15, 2021, of the patients with severe or critical COVID-19 who were hospitalized in Israel, 59 percent were fully vaccinated [232].

The report also points out, on page 12, that “In this 80% vaccinated 65+ population, an estimated 60% of COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in fully vaccinated individuals in the week ending August 7th” [emphasis in the report] [233].

Fully vaccinated people accounted for 57% of the COVID-19 cases, 69% of the acute hospitalizations for COVID-19, and 87% of the “confirmed COVID-19 related deaths” [234].

A January 13, 2022, report by the New South Wales COVID-19 Critical Intelligence Unit indicates that 68.9% of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients were double-vaccinated. New South Wales is an Australian state with 92.5% of its population ages twelve and older double-vaccinated.

January 19, 2022: A report by Public Health Scotland, in Table 16, indicates there were 218 confirmed COVID-19 related deaths in Scotland during the four-week period from December 11, 2021 through January 7, 2022. Of the 218 people who died 160, or 73.4%, had received two or three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The UK Health Security Agency published its COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report for Week 42 on October 21, 2021. That report contains information suggesting the vaccines weaken a person’s natural immune system, perhaps permanently [246

Dr. Ryan Cole, a board-certified pathologist who operates a diagnostic lab in Idaho, describes seeing a drop in CD8 “killer T-cells” after COVID-19 vaccination, indicating a weakened immune system. Since January 1, 2021, after the COVID-19 vaccines became available, Dr. Cole has seen a twenty-fold increase in endometrial cancers over what he sees on an annual basis. He has also seen an increase in melanomas and a significant increase in human papillomavirus when looking at the cervical biopsies of women. He has also seen an increase in herpes and shingles infections.

Because clinical trial participants in the placebo (control) group were subsequently given the option of getting vaccinated, and a number of them chose to be vaccinated, there is no longer a statistically viable control group for a study of the long-term adverse effects of the vaccines.

“The COVID-19 genetic vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J) skipped testing for genotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and oncogenicity. In other words, it is unknown whether or not these products will change human genetic material, cause birth defects, reduce fertility, or cause cancer” [254].

“By that date, the number of deaths following COVID-19 vaccination reported to VAERS had already reached 3,411, with 1,349 or 39.5 percent of those deaths occurring on Day 0, 1, or 2 following vaccination. I expected the director of NIH to share my concerns, but he, together with our other federal health agencies, has continued to downplay the significance of what VAERS is signaling.”

Due to underreporting, the actual number of deaths following vaccination is likely to be far higher than the number reported in VAERS. On July 13, 2021, an expert witness signed a Declaration under penalty of perjury expressing her opinion that, as of July 9, 2021, “the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000.”

Examples of increases in medical conditions reported in DMED for 2021 compared to the previous five-year average include: a 2,181% increase in hypertension; a 1,048% increase in diseases of the nervous system; increases from 474% to 894% in various types of cancer; and a 472% increase in female infertility.

In 2019—before the COVID-19 pandemic came to the United States—Lincoln National paid out $500,888,808 in group death benefits. In 2020—before COVID-19 vaccines were widely available in the United States—the company paid out $547,940,260 in group death benefits. In 2021—when COVID-19 vaccines were widely available and mass vaccination programs were implemented—the company paid out $1,445,350,949 in group death benefits [267]. That is a 163.8% increase in group death benefits paid out by Lincoln National in 2021 compared to 2020.

Public health is identified both historically and in the present day as being acutely susceptible to knowledge problems, which in turn foster the conditions for a public choice trap that causes proposed policy measures to become ineffectual or even counterproductive in disease mitigation.

Many parents are not philosophically opposed to the concept of vaccination and do not object to every vaccine. However, they are philosophically opposed to government health officials having the power to intimidate, threaten, and coerce them into violating their deeply held conscientious beliefs in the event they conclude that either vaccination in general or, more commonly, a particular vaccine is not appropriate for their children.

The principle of informed consent to medical treatment has become a central ethical principle in the practice of modern medicine and is always applied to medical interventions that involve the risk of injury or death.

The right to informed consent is an overarching ethical principle in the practice of medicine, for which vaccination should be no exception. We maintain this is a responsible and ethically justifiable position to take in light of the fact that vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy person that has the inherent ability to result in the injury or death of that healthy person.

The Nuremberg Code, which speaks most specifically to the use of human beings in medical research, but also has been viewed by bioethicists and US courts as the basis for the right to informed consent to medical procedures carrying a risk of injury or death, was followed by the passage in 1964 of the Helsinki Declarations by the World Medical Association. Like the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declarations emphasized the human right to voluntary, informed consent to participation in medical research that may or may not benefit the individual patient, science, or humanity.

But even if the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declarations had never been promulgated and pointed us toward the morality of accepting the human right to informed consent to medical interventions that can kill or injure us, there is the strong Judeo-Christian ethical tradition that protects the sacred right of the individual to exercise freedom of conscience even if it conflicts with a secular law of the state.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principals for clinical research and the doctrine of informed consent. This goes back to the Geneva convention and Helsinki declaration [290]. There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects and for medical procedures.

Censorship and social media banning contribute to preventing full disclosure and discussion of risks, and therefore violate the fundamental right of all of us to consent to medical procedures based on fully informed consent.

The doctrine of informed consent is based upon the right of every individual to determine what shall be done to his or her body in connection with medical treatment, and every patient is entitled to receive the information from their physician needed to allow him or her to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent or refuse treatment. As patients are entitled to this information, physicians must make reasonable disclosures to their patients about the risks associated with a proposed medical procedure or treatment. In the USA, the doctrine of informed consent is applied at the state level. It is at the state level that mass vaccination policies are made.

During this pandemic, the federal government has abused this relationship with states by removing true informed consent at the state level, from the vaccine rollout and by hiding data [150]. As the federal government is and was responsible for the vaccine distribution and processes, they have managed to circumvent the doctrine of informed consent for this procedure.

The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry-sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented. Until this problem is corrected, evidence-based medicine will remain an illusion.

This ideal of the integrity of data and the scientific process is corrupted as long as financial (and government’s) interests are prioritized over the common good.

Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.

Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neoliberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms.

If the scientific and medical journals are to function as the arbiters of medical truth, they must be stopped from taking monies from Big Pharma. This includes the sales of reprints, banner ads, print ads, etc.

Government must stop interfering with the publishing of peer-reviewed papers and discussion on social media. A free press must remain free from coercion from government.

Informed consent, one of the foundations of modern medicine, has been stymied by the FDA, NIH, the CDC hospitalists, big tech, and social media. They have been hiding data and skewing results. When people cannot get the information they need to make an informed decision, evidence-based medicine cannot function correctly.

The government must stop picking winners and losers. Evidence-based medicine requires a nonbiased playing field.

Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights ...

“Peer review” is largely a sham, and what and who actually gets funded is pretty much completely at the whim of the top bureaucrats who run the place (Dr. Fauci is just one example)—who are both untouchable and unaccountable.

Absent a major moral transgression scandal, they literally cannot be fired by the executive branch (which is supposed to provide oversight), and their internal government customer is essentially congress.

If you are a journalist covering the healthcare beat and wish to have access to the inside “scoops” concerning what is going on or coming up within the US Government “health” bureaucracy, you need to have insider access. You want to be on the list of people who are contacted concerning an upcoming press release or emerging issue. But the quid pro quo is that you have to play nice with the big boys, and not be too critical (for a deeper dive, look up “controlled opposition” or “Hegelian dialectic”) or you will lose access to the centers of power and associated information stream.

Never mind the fact that this feedback loop of self-interest has spawned one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world, and that the overall health and longevity of the American taxpayers who fund it continues to slip, year by year, down the ladder of world health outcome ranking.

It is people who should control the levers of government—we must return balance between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideals. Capitalism in the service of a representative democracy, not the other way around. That is what this great nation was founded on.

This is why the government, corporate interests, and “mainstream” (corporate-captured legacy) media find alternate social media platforms that they can’t control to be so threatening. They know these forums are a principal threat, and that control of these alternative information streams are key if the power structure is to be kept from flipping back to control by the people as originally envisioned in the US Constitution.

“One of the things we have seen over the last 30 or 40 years is a gradual silencing of people who are doctors or scientists,” Saul said. “They are silenced by the managerial methodology of contracts. You sign an employment contract that says everything you know belongs to the people who hired you. You are not allowed to speak out. Take that [right] away and you have a gigantic educated group who has a great deal to say and do, but they are tied up. They don’t know how to untie themselves. They come out with their Ph.D. They are deeply in debt. The only way they can get a job is to give up their intellectual freedom. They are prisoners.”

Each of us must take back our power regarding our own and our family’s healthcare. We must be responsible for our own bodies and not give that right away to others. We must choose our physicians carefully and conscientiously.

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.