Under the cover of the 2019 holidays, Big Pharma planted a couple of initiatives to drive vaccine uptake and compliance through the roof well into the next decade. Beyond the mandates passed in California and New York, and then the blowback in New Jersey—the failed attempt to ban religious exemptions—combined with the hysteria over the measles outbreak in Samoa at the end of last year, it seemed Big Pharma and its proxies owned the momentum heading into 2020.

Then something strange happened.

In the first week of December, the WHO hosted the Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva, Switzerland. Instead of “business as usual,” the two-day conference fell into an unusual intellectual gridlock. Doubt seeped into the pro-vaccine “choir” of doctors and scientists.

Why?

Apparently, the WHO’s experts and their colleagues questioned the science on vaccine safety. Come again? One can imagine a pin-dropping along with slacked jaws hitting the floor. But then videos emerged showing the speakers, presenters, and bureaucrats discussing gaps in safety, the validity of efficacy, and the decline in “trust” with the global vaccine program. Instead of the WHO and its minions falling in line, as they had done so in the past, they discussed, debated, and even argued about the failing medical and public “belief” in how safe and effective vaccines really are.

The Irony of ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’

In a moment of mammoth-size irony, the once preachy World Health Organization ended the year with a whimper. Recall that 2019 began with the WHO chanting “vaccine hesitancy” was one of the top ten threats to global health.

What happened?

Air leaked out of the vaccine safety balloon. People were no longer willing to roll up their sleeves to obediently receive an endless series of shots for infections that did not impact their daily lives. The public has been increasingly questioned the merits of vaccine claims, so are frontline medical professionals and scientists.

And that created the WHO’s own form of vaccine hesitancy, growing from sober discussions about the “loose” science behind vaccines being “safe and effective.”

Where has this discussion been for the past thirty years?

At the Vaccine Safety Summit, cracks appeared in their collective narrative. Talking points turned into questions. Many of the scientists in attendance placed vaccines under the microscope for the first time since the illegal Simpsonwood meeting in 2000. Naturally, some of the CDC cult members who also attended the Simpsonwood conference sat through the year-end maelstrom of doubt as the discussion moved from defending the vaccine program to questioning adjuvants and the lack of safety studies.

Two attendees caught my attention:

Former CDC scientist, Dr. Robert Chen, was in attendance. He looked a bit miffed, if not flustered, about the discussion, since he thought vaccine science was settled. Robert Chen is the director of Brighton Collaboration for The Task Force for Global Health—a consortium founded in 1984 by former CDC directors. He worked for three decades at the CDC on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project, and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network.

And Walter Orenstein was present. He is the director of the CDC’s National Immunization Program (1993-2004), who hosted the Simpsonwood meeting, presented at the WHO Vaccine Safety Summit.

When they listened to their international colleagues question virtually every aspect about vaccines, including the ineffectiveness of some adjuvants in “certain populations,” one must wonder what crimped in their soul when they recalled their vaccine science was settled trope? Except, suddenly they came to the realization that the science on both safety and efficacy was never settled. Worse, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist, admitted that “vaccines kill” and that “they cause death.”

And then Dr. Swaminathan arrived at the real crux of the matter that flummoxed her in the 9-minute montage video, created by The HighWire with Del Bigtree on the speakers, stating:

I think I cannot over emphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries, and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we are not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine and this always gets blown up in the media… One should be able to give a very factual account of exactly what happened and what the cause of [the] deaths are, but in most cases there’s some obfuscation on that level and therefore, there is less and less trust then in the system.”

Dr. Martin Howell Friede, coordinator of the Initiative for Vaccine Research at the WHO, discussed the issues related to adjuvants and their paradox, saying, “The first accusation is the adjuvant when it comes to vaccine injuries and vaccine side-effects.”

Friede added:

Without adjuvants we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines ..… Many of the vaccines we do have require adjuvants for the vaccines to work. So, the challenge we have in front of us is how do we build confidence in this?

He then gave advice regarding the design of new vaccines: “If you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. And if you must, use one with a history of safety.”

Which begs the question: Which adjuvant has a scientifically proven “history of safety”?

Dr. Stephen Evans, professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, piled on the adjuvants train wreck by stating in measured terms:

It seems to me they [adjuvants] multiply the reactogenicity in many instances, and therefore it seems to me that it is not unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions…”

Then Dr. Bassey Okposen, program manager of Nigeria’s National Emergency Routine Immunization Coordination Centre, questioned whether safety studies have ever been done on adjuvants from multiple vaccines given at one time and what their “cross-reactions” would be? The auditorium full of experts were unable to answer his questions since no such studies have ever been done. Beyond that, no synergistic toxicity studies have even been entertained or sponsored by the WHO, CDC, or NIH.

The shocking admission that no studies have ever been conducted on the safety of adjuvants – including aluminum, which has been used in vaccines since the 1920s – completely vaporizes the “settled science” paradigm.

The CDC Playbook of ‘No Association’

Then the push back came. And it came from former CDC vaccine data data scientist Robert Chen, who had been involved in killing the link between vaccines and autism with the agency’s “no association” model following Simpsonwood. In fact, that secret meeting showed a clear trend line between the preservative thimerosal in vaccines and the link to the autism epidemic.

Robert Chen, countered:

Now, the only way to tease that out is if you have a large population database like the vaccine safety datalink, as well as some of the other national databases that are coming to being worthy. Actual vaccine exposure is trapped down to that level of specificity of who is the manufacturer? What is the lot number? Etc, etc. And there’s an initiative to try to make the vaccine label information barcoded so that it includes that level of information…

The sample size becomes more and more challenging, and that’s what I said earlier today … that we’re really only in the beginning of the era of large datasets, where hopefully you could start to kind of harmonize the databases for multiple studies. And there’s actually an initiative underway… Marion [Gruber, FDA’s director Office of Vaccines] may want to comment on it to try to get more national vaccine safety database linked together so we could start to answer these types of questions that you just raised.”

What Chen was insinuating, what he was implying, what he was alluding to is this:

We really don’t need more studies. We just need to link existing databases on vaccine studies and vaccine adverse events and mine them. I am sure the data you are looking for already exists.

One must know the history of the CDC to understand where Robert Chen is coming from.

1980s CDC Agent Orange Studies

During the 1980s, when thousands of Vietnam veterans were suffering from rare diseases and acute cancers, the CDC was given  $70.4 million budget to conduct four epidemiological studies over a seven-year period on the effect of Agent Orange on the health of Vietnam veterans. Drs. Coleen Boyle and Frank DeStefano, the principal and deputy investigators, respectively, were the CDC’s ideal tandem of scientists. They were tasked “not to find” an association between Agent Orange and the dying veterans.

Five years into the study, they claimed they couldn’t align Operation Ranch Hand flight patterns with troop movements on the ground. But the US Army said they held those records in a warehouse in Pennsylvania that would make the connection.

Instead of requesting the archived documents, the CDC aborted the study two years early, leaving $20 million on the table. Boyle, to this day, writes about Agent Orange as if there still is no association between dioxin and third-generation birth defects of Vietnamese, despite the fact she ended the study before the association could confirm or deny an association.

2000 Simpsonwood Mercury Meeting

The CDC didn’t fire Boyle and DeStefano back in the 1980s over the Agent Orange fiasco; they promoted them. Thus, when the MMR and thimerosal fires broke out and the public began demanding answers, the CDC erupted in a panic. They knew the link between the MMR vaccine and thimerosal (mercury) to the skyrocketing rates of autism must be buried. The CDC was so focused on protecting vaccine “confidence,” instead of caring about the health of America’s children, that science and the truth were ignored.

At that point, the CDC committed two separate, but parallel, scientific frauds.

First, they hired rogue Danish scientist Poul Thorsen, who the time, was a visiting scientist at the CDC. He was hired to mine the Danish Health Registry, a database that tracks the health history of all Danish citizens from birth. Coleen Boyle oversaw the Thorsen studies on MMR and on thimerosal to make sure ‘no association’ between vaccines and the neurological disorder were found, even if it meant changing the parameters of a study midstream.

I captured all of the corruption and international fraud in my book Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC.

At the same time, Dr. Frank DeStefano carried out the domestic fraud. He “cooked the books” of the Atlanta-based MMR study with Boyle and vaccine whistleblower Dr. William Thompson. Ultimately, after Thompson admission came out in 2014, the world learned that the CDC destroyed the datasets for the domestic fraud that was long bandied about as vaccine science before it was outed.

The WHO and Robert Chen: Tired Arguments

So, is this what Brighton Collaboration Director Bob Chen was referring to at the Vaccine Safety meeting, when he said that “datasets” are a great place to mine vaccine safety data? And does the WHO want to walk down the CDC’s worn path of corruption to produce false “no association” results one more time?

Maybe it’s time to examine the WHO’s role in the massive decline in health of America’s children. Maybe it’s time to defund them by keeping supportive U.S. tax dollars onshore.

That would be one way to guarantee that aborting scientific health studies midstream and cooking and destroying datasets would no longer be tolerated. It would also put the pharma-sponsored scientists at the WHO on notice: we know what you’re doing and what you have done.