Operation Warp Speed Push to Get the Vaccine Out Before the US Election | Politics, Patents & Adverse Affects

in #hive-12231525 days ago (edited)


Operation Warp Speed in High Gear as Race to Get Coronavirus Vaccine out Before Election Day Ensues

Trump’s Operation Warp Speed officially “aims to deliver 300 million doses of a safe, effective vaccine for COVID-19 by January 2021, as part of a broader strategy to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines...”

It looks like now the timetable has just been moved forward in an attempt to get a vaccine out and have the ‘Covid19’ vaccine campaign launched before the US elections.

At the end of August, the CDC sent out an urgent request to all US states, asking them to expedite the approval process for medical supply company McKesson so it can set up coronavirus vaccination sites and have them fully operational by Nov. 1.

“The normal time require to obtain these permits presents a significant barrier to the success of this urgent public health program," the CDC wrote in an Aug. 27 letter to state governors obtained by CNBC. "CDC urgently requests your assistance in expediting applications for these distribution facilities and, if necessary, asks that you consider waiving requirements that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1, 2020."

The NY Times noted that documents laying out detailed vaccination distribution plans were not only sent to all 50 states, but also to health officials in five major cities.

Three documents were sent to public health officials in all states and territories as well as officials in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston and San Antonio on Aug. 27. They outlined detailed scenarios for distributing two unidentified vaccine candidates, each requiring two doses a few weeks apart, at hospitals, mobile clinics and other facilities offering easy access to the first targeted recipients.

Of course the CDC director made sure to emphasize that the requested expedited process including licensing waivers would not compromise safety of the vaccines being distributed, which he deemed to be “critical to the success” of the ‘Covid19’ vaccination program, though it’s difficult to imagine how a vaccine that has been rushed through development and testing this fast could possibly be truly safe, an issue which will be discussed in more detail below.

“Your assistance in helping expedite the issuance of necessary licenses and permits required for the distribution centers to become operational will be critical to the success of this public health effort to mitigate the threat presented by Covid-19," CDC Director Robert Redfield said.

Interestingly, the “threat presented by Covid-19” is at this point negligible, practically nonexistent, as study after study and even CDC data and updated guidelines are demonstrating, with any ‘pandemic’ there may have once been now long gone. As Dr. Malcolm Kendrick put it in a recent article published by RT:

...we’ve had all the deaths we were ever going to get. [...] ...the hospitals and ICUs are virtually empty. Almost no one is dying of Covid anymore, and most of those who do were otherwise very ill.

And yet the race to get the vaccine out in record time is only speeding up as its necessity disappears - despite the ‘pandemic’ having already run its course and clearly no longer posing any serious public health threat, the mad rush intensifies - despite the obvious safety concerns inherent with such a rush.

Just prior to the urgent CDC request, the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Stephen Hahn even said, as reported by CNBC, that “the agency is prepared to bypass the full federal approval process in order to make a Covid19 vaccine available as soon as possible.”

Insisting that the move would not be due to pressure from the Trump administration to fast track a vaccine, he said an emergency authorization could be appropriate before phase three clinical trials are completed if the benefits outweigh the risks.

What should be unbelievably shocking, but unfortunately isn’t all that surprising considering the vaccine industry’s incredible influence over government policy, is the willingness by regulatory agencies to approve a vaccine before it has even completed phase three clinical trials!

The process of development and approval for a typical vaccine usually takes over five years, even longer when developing vaccines for new viruses like this one, with the fastest historical vaccine production ever being four years; and yet these new vaccines, some of which are testing never-before-used-on humans mRNA vaccine technology, are on track to hit the market in under a year! This three-year-short fast-track should be alarming to even the most ardent vaccine proponent, and yet the only aspect of concern in mainstream circles seems to be the possibility of cutting short the Phase 3 trials by a few weeks to get the vaccine out by Election Day. Even the most sold out mainstream outlets like the The NY Times and CNN, however, were forced to admit the incredible folly of such a move, and the huge safety risks involved with such an early approval.

“...there can be significant risks in approving a vaccine for broad use in the public before Phase 3 clinical trials involving tens of thousand of participants are completed,” The NY Times noted.

Rare but dangerous side effects may only surface over time, after such large numbers of people have received the vaccine.

And data gathered early in a trial might not hold true months down the line.

Researchers also need time to test large numbers of people from a variety of backgrounds to determine how well the vaccine works in different populations — including the vulnerable communities.

These are exactly the type of reasons why no vaccine has ever made it through the production, testing and approval process in less than four years...

A CNN headline from September 1st reads: Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine could be ‘colossally stupid.’


But it’s apparently not primarily the safety issues that makes rushing a vaccine ‘colossally stupid’, but instead the need to retain people’s trust in the system and their faith in vaccination.

“...people's mistrust of the system makes the idea that the FDA would rush this process before late stage clinical trials are complete "colossally stupid." Thus a rushed vaccine would likely create a “nightmare scenario,” in which we don’t have a safe vaccine, and “if it is not safe, people will lose faith in vaccines.”

In other words, Trump may actually be doing the vaccine truth movement a huge service here, because if a new coronavirus vaccine begins to harm enough people, the masses may begin to see that vaccines are not nearly as safe as we’ve all been told since childhood...

Enter Politics

Sadly, such apparent ‘resistance’ appears to be almost entirely politicized and only superficially focused on the inherent vaccine dangers posed by such a rushed vaccine, with the real focus being on opposition to Trump’s role in pushing the vaccine and retaining public trust in vaccination. They are using vaccine safety concern merely as an issue to create political opposition to Trump and the Republicans. This politicization of such an issue is nothing new, and once it happens, science is quickly thrown out the window and replaced with political rhetoric.

The obvious politicization of the vaccine issue along with strong support for the vaccine and coming global vaccination campaign shared by both sides of the two-party establishment can be clearly seen in comments made by both Trump and Biden on September 7. Both presidential candidates are pushing the same false narrative about the urgent ‘necessity’ of a coronavirus vaccine to put an end to a ‘dangerous’ pandemic that is no longer around, and both are clearly in the pockets of Big Pharma, fully complicit in the Gates-backed NWO Covid1984 agenda to vaccinate the entire global population (among other things).


“Under my leadership, we’ll produce a vaccine in record time,” Trump said, echoing his promise made when he first launched Operation Warp Speed.

He then took a shot at the democrats for criticizing the fast-tracking of the vaccine, saying it’s all about politics and not true safety concerns, “Because now they see we’ve done an incredible job, and in speed like nobody’s ever seen before.”

The ‘speed like nobody’s seen before’ is no joke, but since no vaccine is actually yet approved, and clinical trials aren’t yet complete, there’s no possible way anyone in the world can actually see that he’s ‘done an incredible job’ getting a safe and effective vaccine out in record time as he claims, making his criticism of their criticism laughable. By the way he speaks on the issue, it’s almost as if the President knows a vaccine is set be approved as ‘safe and effective’ by his deadline, regardless of the results of the trials between now and then. That deadline appears to be November 1st, as Trump went on to infer his ‘October Surprise’ would be delivery of a vaccine.

This could have taken two to three years (as it should have), but instead it’s going to be, haha, in a very short period of time, could even have it during the month of October. So contrary to all of the lies [about] the vaccine, they’re politicized, and they’ll say anything, and it’s dangerous to our country, what they say. But the vaccine will be very safe and very effective, it’ll be delivered very soon, and we could have a very big surprise coming up, and you’ll be very happy, the people will be happy anyway.”

The President also clearly insinuated that questioning the vaccine was “dangerous to our country,” making acceptance of the vaccine out to be a patriotic duty, just like he did when he called on all his supporters to begin wearing masks. This rhetoric is in line with previous calls for mandatory vaccination in the media, which claimed that taking the ‘Covid19’ vaccine will be everyone’s patriotic duty. It should also be noted that the President on several past occasions has declared that the military is ready and prepared to “deliver” the vaccine to people all across the country the second it becomes available.

Interestingly, Trump wasn’t always this gung-ho about vaccines, and had in fact at the beginning of his presidency looked into starting a vaccine safety commission potentially headed up by Robert Kennedy Jr. who was advising him on the potential project, before apparently being dissuaded by Bill Gates, who later admitted at a Gates Foundation event, seen in footage later aired by MSNBC, that when asked by Trump in March 2017 if vaccines weren’t a bad thing, he had warned the president that such an idea was a “dead end” and a “bad thing,” telling him “don’t do it,” in reference to the proposed safety review.


The full clip as aired on MSNBC can be seen below:

Meanwhile, as those on the establishment left call into question Trump’s decision to rush the vaccine through testing and trials in record time, Joe Biden makes abundantly clear that he, too, speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party as their presidential nominee, is just as eager as Trump to get a vaccine rushed out, if not more so. Biden also doesn’t actually appear to be all that concerned with the safety of the vaccine after all, but rather that Trump’s politicization of the issue and associated rush to get it out will undermine public confidence and thus decrease public uptake of the vaccine.

Because of the many things Trump has said about the vaccine that are untrue, Biden explained, “I’m worried that if we do have a really good vaccine, people are gonna be reluctant to take it, and so he’s undermining public confidence.”

This is right in line with CNN’s analysis revealing the underlying principle driving opposition to the rushed vaccine to be more so concern with retaining people’s trust in the system and vaccination programs, than safety concerns alone.

“If I could get a vaccine tomorrow, I’d do it,“ he went on to say, “if it cost me the election I’d do it. We need a vaccine, and we need it now,” the presidential candidate said.

Ironically, such comments mirror the exact same rhetoric behind Trump’s mad rush to get the vaccine out this November, the very issue the democrats appear on the surface to be in such opposition of. This is so clearly all just a part of the political game, about finding ways to divide the people along party lines to keep them loyal to the establishment, and has little to nothing to do with real concerns about vaccine safety. The real democratic concern is about ‘undermining public confidence’ in the vaccine, which also aligns with an argument made against mandatory vaccination for the sole reason that making a vaccine mandatory might actually drive more people away from accepting it.

The real ‘problem’ here appears not to be that the vaccine is being rushed, but rather that Trump is the one rushing it. In other words, the problem is Trump, and the vaccine issue is just one way to rally opposition against him. If democrats were getting this vaccine out, they’d be doing it right, this line of thinking goes. It’s the fact that Trump has made the vaccine rush a part of his political platform that the left has begun to challenge the issue of a rushed vaccine, at which point all science is thrown to the wind and the usual political frenzy ensues.

Hopefully the clear politicization of the coming vaccine does begin to wake people up to the fact that there is an obvious political agenda driving this vaccine rollout, and not just science and a public health ‘emergency’. Both the left and right wings of the political establishment have long been united on the vaccine issue in their strong stance against so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’, so it’s interesting to see the vaccine issue finally become a politically divisive issue. I doubt it will remain this way for long, but as James Corbett pointed out in a recent New World Next Week show, the politicization of the issue might shake some people out of their otherwise blind support for the coming global vaccination campaign, as they realize that if a vaccine rollout is politically motivated, it might not have quite the solid science behind it as all of us are always told is the case with such things, particularly by those on the establishment left who are now most likely to be questioning it. Very interesting political development indeed...

And, as a side note, the show also discusses the recent debut of the first ever ‘Covid19’ RoboCop-style police helmet, supposedly capable of scanning for fevers and detecting people with ‘Covid19’ from great distances, along with a myriad of other Orwellian Covid1984-style functions. “Public officials in Flint, Michigan cannot provide clean drinking water to their residents but travelers to [Flint] Bishop International Airport can get a glimpse of the new robotic cop helmets where they’re currently deployed.”

Yes, the Covid1984 agenda continues to steadily march forward on all fronts, long after the threat of ‘Covid19’ has disappeared. As was to be expected, for this was never about a ‘pandemic’, but rather always about an agenda.

Getting back to the subject at hand, Dr. Anthony Fauci also said the ‘Covid19’ vaccine is ‘right on target’ for deployment this year, even by November.

“Things are really right on target," Fauci told MSNBC earlier in the day. " I think you'll know by the end of this year, November, December, that we do have a safe and effective vaccine."

Like Trump, Fauci seems to be ‘in the know’ that there will be a ‘safe and effective’ vaccine approved right on Trump’s Operation Warp Speed schedule, as if such approval is a foregone conclusion and the ongoing trials are but a formality. Which specific vaccine(s) this may be is a matter of speculation, but there are a few very obvious likely candidates.

AstraZeneka & Moderna rise to the top: A look at the two leading coronavirus vaccine manufacturers

Operation Warp Speed funded six vaccine developers to the tune of billions as a part of Trump’s promise to help get a vaccine out in record time, three of which are leading the charge having entered Phase 3 trials, and look like the most likely contenders for global or at least US vaccines of choice - Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. Of these three, Moderna and AstraZeneca are best positioned to become the top suppliers for the coming global vaccination program which is set to be the largest vaccination campaign the world has ever seen.

AstraZeneca has already secured contracts with the US, UK and Australia, to supply the US government with millions of doses, the Australian government with 30 million doses, and the UK government with a whopping 100 million doses. The company also stated in a press release that it had struck a joint agreement with the US and UK to supply the two governments with a total of 400 million doses, and it plans to have several million doses in the hands of UK authorities by the end of the year. The Pharmaceutical giant is also set to supply most of South and Central America with their vaccine, and the European Commission also struck a deal to purchase 300 million doses.

Following the announcement of the Australian deal, the Australian PM announced his intention to make the vaccine mandatory across the country, and a former AstraZeneca employee wrote an opinion piece for a large media outlet calling for mandatory vaccination for the entire population. See my post from a few weeks ago - The March to Mandatory Vaccination and Global Lockdown Pushes Forward - for more on those stories and the mandatory vaccination agenda that’s currently in the works.

That the company is already securing so many contracts with governments around the world before its vaccine has even completed trials just goes to show how certain these governments appear to be that the drug will be approved, and how sure the company is that it’s vaccine will reach the market. With all of its massive contracts and deals around the world, the company began manufacturing 2 billion doses well before it’s vaccine completed its trials, in what it deemed to be a ‘financial risk’.

“We are actually starting to manufacture right now, we are not going to wait until we get the clinical results. That’s the financial risk that is taken and it is going to be shared with organizations we are partnering with,” he told BBC World News (at the beginning of June).

Considering this ‘financial risk’ would be shared with major partners such as the US government and Bill Gates, you can bet these influential entities are highly motivated to use their power to ensure this new vaccine is fast-tracked through the approval process.

The vaccine itself was developed by Oxford researchers, and is strongly backed and supported by both the US and Bill Gates. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation along with the GAVI Vaccine Alliance are backing the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer to produce at least 100 million doses of AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine. GAVI is heavily financed by both Gates and the US government, through the Trump administration as well as by USAID.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

The Gates Foundation as well as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—an organization which helps negotiate and finance vaccines for poor countries—said they would back privately held Serum Institute, or SII, to speed up the manufacturing of Covid-19 vaccine doses for the developing countries once any are proven effective. SII is one of several contracted manufacturers already tapped by AstraZeneca PLC to make a vaccine in development at the University of Oxford.

The Serum Institute is in fact currently contracted out to make a billion doses of AztraZeneka’s vaccine, half of its initial production.

AstraZeneca also struck a $750 million deal with CEPI and GAVI, two Gates-backed organizations, to supply and distribute 300 million doses of its vaccine across the world.

Not only is GAVI heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, but also by the US, both by the Trump Administration and through USAID.

AstraZeneca’s vaccine development is of course also being funded by the US through Operation Warp Speed, it has received over $1 billion in US funding, and it is widely recognized as the leading global coronavirus vaccine manufacturer, but it isn’t the only one that looks set to play a major part in the coming global vaccination campaign.

The NY Times noted that the technical specifications laid out in the CDC plans for distribution of two unnamed vaccines in November appear to match those being developed by Pfizer and Moderna, and thus Moderna’s vaccine looks to be the most likely candidate to become the biggest US vaccine of choice, at least in my opinion (and the opinion of many others as well). This becomes rather clear when one takes a deeper look at the interesting history of how the biotech company got to this point. It is not out of the question that two (or more) vaccines could be distributed simultaneously either, and it should be noted that Pfizer said it’s vaccine would be ready for government review sometime in October.

It is Moderna, however, which has largely been the main focus of media attention throughout this journey, and also has the far more interesting story, so of these two candidates for primary vaccine distribution in the US, Moderna will be the focus of this post.

The rise of Moderna

Moderna is a biotech company focusing exclusively on mRNA technology, which has never created a single successful product, and yet was one of only six companies chosen by Trump to receive US funding to produce a coronavirus vaccine as a part of Operation Warp Speed. Interestingly, AstraZeneka also has a 7.7% financial stake in the company. The US has funded Moderna’s vaccine to the tune of about $950 million.

It is also one of many coronavirus vaccine manufactures backed and supported by Bill Gates, and one of those creating an experimental mRNA vaccine, technology which has never been used on humans before. The billionaire is open about this support, both of mRNA vaccine technology in general, and Moderna specifically.

Our foundation—both through our own funding and through CEPI—has been supporting the development of an RNA vaccine platform for nearly a decade. We were planning to use it to make vaccines for diseases that affect the poor like malaria, but now it’s looking like one of the most promising options for COVID. The first candidate to start human trials was an RNA vaccine created by a company called Moderna.

At the beginning of 2016, Moderna announced a new partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which pledged from $20 million to $100 million in funding to the company in support of its mRNA vaccine technology.

In January 2016, we entered a global health project framework agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed up to $20.0 million in grant funding to support our initial project related to the evaluation of antibody combinations in a preclinical setting as well as the conduct of a first-in-human Phase 1 clinical trial of a potential mRNA medicine to help prevent human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, infections.

Follow-on projects which could bring total potential funding under the framework agreement up to $100.0 million...to support the development of additional mRNA-based projects for various infectious diseases...

Moderna has since 2015 been repeatedly seeking a patent for mRNA vaccines for flu-like viruses, including SARS coronaviruses. Each of these patent applications included the interesting statement, that:

Because of a concern for reemergence or a deliberate release of the SARS coronavirus, vaccine development was initiated.

Why they seemed so concerned about a potential deliberate release of a SARS coronavirus, so as to emphasize the possibility with bold lettering is not known, however such concern seemed to be shared by the WHO’s 2019 pandemic preparedness manual or “Annual report on global preparedness for health emergencies” published in September, 2019 (one month before the ‘Event 201’ pandemic simulation), which called on the UN (including WHO) to conduct “at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen,” by September, 2020.

All indications of potential foreknowledge aside, the US Patent Office eventually issued a final rejection of Moderna’s patent request for this mRNA vaccine technology in December, 2019, following the company’s last request submitted in March of that year. Also in December of 2019, immediately preceding the ‘Covid19 pandemic’, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) signed a deal with Moderna to fund their mRNA vaccine development, almost as if they somehow knew it would soon be needed and thus be put to use.

NIH and Moderna have researched coronaviruses, like MERS, for several years, and signed a contract this past December that stated "mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned" by the two parties. The contract was not specific to the novel coronavirus, and it was signed before the new virus had been sequenced. - AXIOS

So a US federal agency with ties to the White House has a major stake in the Moderna vaccine. Maybe that’s part of the reason why, then, despite not having a patent for the vaccine they would soon begin to develop, the Trump Administration at the beginning of the year still chose Moderna as one of six candidates whose vaccine it would fast-track through production. Scientists at the NIH actually developed the mRNA technology featured in their coronavirus vaccine, and put in their own individual patent requests on this vaccine technology.

Then, despite having just had all their patent requests permanently rejected several months earlier, the US Patent Office was for some reason moved to make a complete turnaround, and issued Moderna a patent for their mRNA vaccine technology in May.

Benn Swann discusses this anomaly in an interesting show, linked below.


According to the guest doctor interviewed in the show (also featured in Plandemic II: Indoctornation), Moderna submitted an amended patent in March, 2019 - their last patent submission request before its final rejection - which indicated that: “The probability is very high these individuals had internal knowledge that there was a priority going to be placed on their technology, and that was going to put them in line for a huge amount of federal funding.”

If this is the case, it sure would help to explain the convenient timing of NIH’s partnership with Moderna just a month before the arrival of the ‘pandemic’ on the global scene...

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the ‘lead infectious disease expert in the country’ and central figure in the US ‘war on coronavirus’ and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, also heads the NIAID which happens to be run by the NIH, so he has close ties to one of the two major sponsors of the Moderna vaccine (who are also co-owners/co-producers), with Bill Gates being the other major sponsor. As CBS puts it, the experimental vaccine is being “developed by Fauci's colleagues at the National Institutes of Health and Moderna Inc.”

Moderna also went to the NIH for its approval to skip animal trials, one of the reasons it was able to develop the vaccine so incredibly fast.

In an article entitled “Coronavirus and the Gates Foundation,” The New Eastern Outlook journal reported that: “Gates Foundation monies via CEPI are...co-funding the Cambridge, Massachusetts biotech company, Moderna Inc., to develop a vaccine against the Wuhan novel coronavirus, now called SARS-CoV-2.”

Moderna’s other partner is the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Head of NIAID is Dr Anthony Fauci, the person at the center of the Trump Administration virus emergency response. Notable about the Fauci-Gates Moderna coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273, is that it has been rolled out in a matter of weeks, not years, and on February 24 went directly to Fauci’s NIH for tests on human guinea pigs, not on mice as normal. Moderna’s chief medical adviser, Tal Zaks, argued, “I don’t think proving this in an animal model is on the critical path to getting this to a clinical trial…

Coincidentally, Fauci also has close ties to the other major sponsor of the Moderna vaccine, Bill Gates, a major engineer of the global vaccination agenda.


As reported by National File:

Fauci was named to the Leadership Council of the “Decade of Vaccines” Collaboration, which the World Health Organization, Fauci’s agency NIAID, UNICEF, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation convened.

Then, in October of 2019, just two months before the NIH/Moderna partnership was formed, Fauci announced a new partnership between the NIH and the Gates Foundation, in which both parties agreed to invest $100 million in gene-based therapies for two diseases, HIV and SCD...

“This collaboration is an ambitious step forward, harnessing the most cutting-edge scientific tools and NIH’s sizable global HIV research infrastructure to one day deliver a cure and end the global HIV pandemic,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD, in a statement announcing the initiative.

Fauci is clearly playing an integral part in the Gates-backed global vaccination agenda with his influential position and close ties to the producers of the Moderna vaccine, but he is not the only key player in the game, and the NIH is not the only government party with an obvious conflict of interest here.

In May, the same month Moderna received its previously rejected patent approval, Donald Trump appointed Big Pharma insider Moncef Slaoui as his coronavirus vaccine czar to head up Operation Warp Speed.

Slaoui is both the former head of vaccine development at the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, and was at the time of his selection one of the board of directors of - you guessed it - Moderna!

And yes, this means Trump’s pick for vaccine czar would be the former head of vaccine development at the same GlaxoSmithKline that manufactured the Infanrix Hexa vaccine, which upon being independently tested was found in December of 2018 to not contain a single one of the antigens for the six viruses is was purportedly developed to protect children against but had 65 toxins, rendering it an incredibly toxic and absolutely useless vaccine. But almost nobody knows about this pharmaceutical scam, because the media refused to report on what should have been the biggest vaccine story of the year. And yes, Moncef Slaoui was indeed working at the company as a vaccine researcher when this vaccine was being developed, though he wasn’t appointed head of the department until six years after its release. Still, a really shady history to be in charge of fast-tracking experimental vaccines to the market in a highly politicized environment, I would say.

Slaoui stepped down from his position at Moderna to take the White House job where he would oversee the process of fast-tracking six choice vaccines to production - including one being produced by the very company he had literally been holding an executive position at until accepting his new job as US vaccine czar. And, despite officially stepping down, Slaoui didn’t sell his Moderna stock options, which at the time of his appointment were valued at over $10 million!

Talk about a massive conflict of interest, one so incredibly obvious that at least one member of Congress publicly called for his resignation over, although the request fell on deaf ears.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called on Slaoui to "divest immediately," saying his financial ties to the company were a "huge conflict of interest."

It should now be a little more clear as to why Moderna looks to be the most likely candidate to be chosen as the top US vaccine supplier, in large part because the evidence appears to indicate Moderna was chosen at the very beginning of Operation Warp Speed to fulfill this purpose. In any event, they have become one of the most talked about vaccine candidates within mainstream media, and look to have produced one of the only two vaccines the CDC is banking on for an early US deployment later this year.

Safety Concerns and Adverse Side Effects

Like all successful vaccine pushers, Bill Gates is pretty good at downplaying vaccine injuries and adverse side affects. And yet at the same time, he seems to have had a pretty good idea from the beginning that the new coronavirus vaccines he was backing wouldn’t be without their problems. Early on in the pandemic, he called for immunity from liability for ‘Covid19’ vaccine manufacturers, and he got it, with the US Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, by which all ‘Covid19 medical countermeasures’ were broadly granted immunity from liability for any damages caused.


Even with these years they have to sort out safety issues in your typical vaccine which are being circumvented with these ones, there is not a single vaccine on the market that has not caused some type of serious injury to at least a small amount of users, some far more dangerous than others. Bill Gates seems well aware that even the most effective vaccines aren’t without safety issues, and openly acknowledges his new mRNA coronavirus vaccines will be no different. Writing on GatesNotes, he explains:

The smallpox vaccine is the only vaccine that’s wiped an entire disease off the face of the earth, but it’s also pretty brutal to receive. It left a scar on the arm of anyone who got it. One out of every three people had side effects bad enough to keep them home from school or work. A small—but not insignificant—number developed more serious reactions.

“The smallpox vaccine was far from perfect, but it got the job done,” he added. “The COVID-19 vaccine might be similar.”

He then goes on to write:

Since we might not have time to do multi-year studies, we will have to conduct robust phase 1 safety trials and make sure we have good real-world evidence that the vaccine is completely safe to use.

The real problem arises over what exactly constitutes a vaccine that is ‘completely safe to use.’ Apparently a vaccine causing a third of people side effects bad enough to keep them from working or going to school, with a smaller “but not insignificant” number developing really serious adverse affects, is considered ‘safe’ according to Bill Gates. I’m sure those who develop the serious issues would beg to disagree, but the argument behind vaccines is that a few seriously inured people is a necessary sacrifice ‘for the greater good’.

Dr. Fauci openly stated that he wasn’t “particularly concerned” with the safety of the NIH/Moderna vaccine. As reported by MSNBC in late July, right before Moderna’s Phase 3 trials kicked off:

White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Monday he is "not particularly concerned" about the safety risk of a potential coronavirus vaccine by Moderna, despite the fact that it uses new technology to fight the virus.

Following Moderna’s Phase 1 trials, in a CBSN interview, Bill Gates stumbled to find a good answer when the anchor interjected that 100% of people receiving a high dose experiencing adverse affects. “Ya, but some of that’s just super painful [at the injection site],” he said, implying the side effects weren’t all that bad. He then advised relying upon the FDA’s approval process, which he appeared fully confident would make the right choice about safety. As it turns out, that same FDA has now announced its willingness to approve one or more of the new experimental vaccines even before the trials have been completed! A short video compilation on the push for mandatory vaccination I recently made which includes clips from that CBSN interview can be seen below.

(Video also on BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/sB5iPXeR0nhd/)

The results from Moderna’s Phase 1 trials showed quite a high rate of adverse affects, some quite serious, and yet the mainstream media jumped to parrot the vaccine manufacturer’s conclusion that they indicated a totally safe vaccine.

Subjects were initially given the vaccine in low and high dose levels, - 150 mcg and 250 mcg - and then were later given a second dose of the same strength. As we now know, at least two doses will be necessary, and, as the trial indicated, the negative side effects compounded with each dose, indicating a vaccine that is increasingly toxic with each dose.

“Systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination, particularly with the highest dose,” the authors of the study wrote.

100% of participants reported side effects after the second dose, and 100% of those taking the higher dose experienced side effects after the first injection, while 80% of those receiving lower dose had negative side effects caused by the first round of injections. The most common side effects included “fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site.” Bill Gates only bothered to mention the pain at the injection site, as if the others didn’t matter...

As summarized by Joseph Mercola at LewRockWell in his excellent article entitled, Gates Tries to Justify Side Effects of Fast-Tracked Vaccine:

Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects.

In the highest dosage group, which received 250 mcg, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses. Three of the 14 participants (21%) in the 250-mcg group suffered “one or more severe events.”

Despite these worrisome results, the trial is being heralded as a big success, and vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit has been quoted as saying we now know “that it’s safe in 45 people,” and that “it doesn’t have a very common side effect problem.”

Clearly, we have very different perceptions of reality on what “very common” means.

Similarly, the study authors concluded that the numerous adverse affects found in over 50% of all participants “revealed no patterns of concern.” (Sourced from Natural News):

Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern… These safety and immunogenicity findings support advancement of the mRNA-1273 vaccine to later-stage clinical trials.

Clearly, we also have very different perceptions of reality on what constitutes “patterns of concern.”

And so, when Bill Gates talks about side-effects not being all that bad, what he must be referring to is that the really bad side effects in some don’t outweigh the perceived ‘greater good’ the vaccine will do to stop a virus that is no longer posing any kind of serious threat to humanity...

We do know there were a few severe adverse affects in the Moderna trials (bad enough to require hospitalization or medical care), but after first ignoring these severe side effects, the media was then able to spin even that in a positive direction for the vaccine manufacturers, by finding the one test subject to suffer such a serious affect who said it was worth it!

One headline example from an article hosted on MSN News, the online news site run by the tech giant founded and previously owned by Bill Gates himself:

He experienced a severe reaction to Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine candidate. He's still a believer

Since the vaccines are being rushed through trials, and many skipped animal trials, and many more serious adverse affects take many months to surface, there is no way to know the full scope of dangers these vaccines will pose. Plus, a good number of these vaccines, including Moderna’s, features mRNA technology which has never before been tested before on humans, but they are likely prone to cause a number of serious issues, that Gates and none of the vaccine pushers want to address.

A paper published by NIH earlier this year warns that:

“...recent reports regarding rare cases of moderate or severe reactions for different mRNA vaccines have raised concerns about safety and immunogenicity, including in the primary outcome findings of the phase I trial on mRNA-1273. Therefore, it is important to clearly understand the potential risks of this type of mRNA-based vaccine, which include local and systemic inflammatory responses, the biodistribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression, possible development of autoreactive antibodies and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components.

Furthermore, “According to researchers at University of Pennsylvania and Duke University, mRNA vaccines have potential safety issues, including local and systemic inflammation and stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and autoimmunity, as well as development of edema (swelling) and blood clots.” (The Vaccine Reaction)

Not to mention, traditional coronavirus vaccines are already inherently problematic, meaning this is definitely not the vaccine to be rushing through development and trials, and doing so is an almost certain recipe for disaster.

As reported by Reuters on March 11, 2020:

Studies have suggested that coronavirus vaccines carry the risk of what is known as vaccine enhancement, where instead of protecting against infection, the vaccine can actually make the disease worse when a vaccinated person is infected with the virus.

The mechanism that causes that risk is not fully understood and is one of the stumbling blocks that has prevented the successful development of a coronavirus vaccine.

Normally, researchers would take months to test for the possibility of vaccine enhancement in animals. Given the urgency to stem the spread of the new coronavirus, some drugmakers are moving straight into small-scale human tests, without waiting for the completion of such animal tests.

‘I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with,’ Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told Reuters.

The vaccine manufacturers have also found other ways to mask some of the immediate side effects in their studies. At least 15 were not using inert placebos on the control arm of their studies, but actual vaccines. And in at least one arm of the AstraZek vaccine trials, subjects were given acetaminophen every few hours for the first 24 hours following the vaccine injection, which could mask or reduce side effects such as high fever, muscle pain, and headaches.

Most recently, one extremely serious “unexpected adverse affect” occurred in a trial participant in the UK, presumably caused by the AstraZek vaccine, forcing them to pause the trial on September 8.

The company offered few details, stating the pause was a routine safety check, while a spokesman later said that a woman had developed neurological symptoms, which turns out to have been a case of transverse myelitis which partially paralyzed the woman.


The “suspected adverse affect” was confirmed by The NY Times; the affected participant “received a diagnosis of transverse myelitis, an inflammatory syndrome that affects the spinal cord and is often sparked by viral infections.”

On September 14, without further clarification regarding the details of the case, it was announced that the trial was resuming, upon completion of the ‘independent’ safety review, “following the recommendations of both the independent safety review committee and the U.K. regulator, the MHRA.”

Dr. Fauci said such situations were “not uncommon,” a tacit admission that severe adverse affects are anticipated in vaccine trials in at least a small number of participants. Oxford, the creator of the vaccine, likewise said that in large trials such as these, "it is expected that some participants will become unwell...”

Given the FDA’s admitted willingness to cut trials short in order to get one of these experimental vaccines out sooner, the long track record of Big Pharma influence over regulatory agencies, and the number of western governments who have already contracted with AstraZeneka to purchase millions of doses of their vaccine, I wouldn’t jump to trust the so-called independent regulatory agencies and safety review boards as they approve the continuation of the AstraZeneka trials, deeming them ‘safe’ following this incident - particularly given the UK regulatory agency MHRA’s role in this recommendation, as the UK government is set to purchase 100 million vaccine doses from AstraZeneka. Some would deem that a conflict of interest, but the likes of Bill Gates would probably deem such a thought as an ‘anti-vaxxer’ ‘conspiracy theory’...

Given Bill Gates’ disdain for the fact that the ‘bad news’ such as such serious adverse affects like these travel so quickly across social media compared to his mainstream-approved talking points, we would expect the mainstream media to jump on the opportunity to correct the notion that this poor woman’s condition was caused by the vaccine - if indeed the investigation had found it was not in fact caused by the drug. That there is an eery silence on this front indicates this was indeed a severe injury caused by Oxford and AstraZeneka’s experimental vaccine.

The ‘experts’ and officials were enthusiastic about the resumption of the trial; none seemed overly concerned about the victim. This sort of attitude among vaccine pushers seems to be typical, and this sort of overlooking safety concerns a reoccurring theme. If this was an early example of a severe coronavirus vaccine injury, it makes one wonder just how much damage the vaccine will cause once it is unleashed on the entire global population.

Perhaps there is a reason we have been told that ethnic minorities and populations of the Third World are the top priority upon whom the vaccine will be pushed on first, and maybe the reason isn’t truly because they seek to vaccinate the highest risk populations first. If nothing else, to make such a new and likely dangerous experimental vaccine mandatory on any human population would constitute a grave crime against humanity.