Google & Oracle To Monitor Americans Who Get Warp Speed's Covid-19 Vaccine For Up To Two Years | Whitney Webb, unlimitedhangout.com
Last week, a rare media interview given by the Trump administration's "Vaccine Czar" offered a brief glimpse into the inner workings of the extremely secretive Operation Warp Speed (OWS), the Trump administration's "public-private partnership" for delivering a Covid-19 vaccine to 300 million Americans by next January. What was revealed should deeply unsettle all Americans.
During an interview with the Wall Street Journal published last Friday, the "captain" of Operation Warp Speed, career Big Pharma executive Moncef Slaoui, confirmed that the millions of Americans who are set to receive the project's Covid-19 vaccine will be monitored via "incredibly precise . . . tracking systems" that will "ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects." Slaoui also noted that tech giants Google and Oracle have been contracted as part of this "tracking system" but did not specify their exact roles beyond helping to "collect and track vaccine data."
In the OWS document entitled "From the Factory to the Frontlines," the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) stated that, because Warp Speed vaccine candidates use new unlicensed vaccine production methods that "have limited previous data on safety in humans . . . the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance and Phase 4 (post-licensure) clinical trials."
Despite the claims in these documents that the "pharmacovigilance surveillance system" would intimately involve the FDA, top FDA officials stated in September that they were barred from attending OWS meetings and told reporters they could not explain the operation's organization or when or with what frequency its leadership meets. The FDA officials did state, however, that they "are still allowed to interact with companies developing products for OWS," STAT news reported.
In addition, the FDA has apparently "set up a firewall between the vast majority of staff and the initiative [Operation Warp Speed]" that appears to drastically limit the number of FDA officials with any knowledge of or involvement in Warp Speed. The FDA's director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Janet Woodcock, is the only FDA official listed as having any direct involvement in OWS and appears to be personally managing this "firewall" at the FDA. Woodcock describes herself as a long-time advocate for the use of "big data" in the evaluation of drug and vaccine safety and has been intimately involved in FDA precursors to the coming Warp Speed "pharmacovigilance surveillance system" known as Sentinel and PRISM, both of which are discussed later in this report.
The extreme secrecy of Operation Warp Speed has affected not only the FDA but also the CDC, as a CDC expert panel normally involved in developing the government's vaccine distribution strategies was "stonewalled" by Matt Hepburn, OWS's vaccine coordinator, who bluntly refused to answer several of the panel's "pointed questions" about the highly secretive operation.
Given my previous reporting on the use of a nongovernment intermediary for awarding OWS contracts to vaccine companies, it seems likely that Warp Speed contracts awarded to Google and Oracle were made using a similar mechanism. In an October 6, 2020, report for The Last American Vagabond, I noted that $6 billion in Warp Speed contracts awarded to vaccine companies were made through Advanced Technology International (ATI), a government contractor that works mainly with the military and surveillance technology companies and whose parent company has strong ties to the CIA and the 2001 Dark Winter simulation.
A major conflict of interest worth noting is Google's ownership of YouTube, which recently banned on its massive multimedia platform all "misinformation" related to concerns about a future Covid-19 vaccine. With Google now formally part of Operation Warp Speed, it seems likely that any concerns about OWS's extreme secrecy and the conflicts of interest of many of its members (particularly Moncef Slaoui and Matt Hepburn) as well as any concerns about Warp Speed vaccine safety, allocation and/or distribution may be labeled "Covid-19 vaccine misinformation" and removed from YouTube.
Sentinel has a series of "collaborating partners" that "provide healthcare data and scientific, technical, and organizational expertise" to the initiative. These collaborating partners include intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, tech giant IBM, and major US health insurance companies such as Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield, among many others. In addition, Sentinel's Innovation Center, which it describes as the program's "test bed to identify, develop, and evaluate innovative methods," is partnered with Amazon, General Dynamics, and Microsoft. Sentinel also has a Community Building and Outreach Center, which is managed by Deloitte consulting, one of the largest consultancy firms in the world that is known for seeking to fill its ranks with former CIA officials.
The Sentinel system's specific surveillance program aimed at monitoring vaccine effectiveness is known as the Post-licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring Program, better known as PRISM. Sentinel's PRISM was "developed to monitor vaccine safety, but [to date] has never been used to assess vaccine effectiveness."
The name PRISM may remind readers of the National Security Agency (NSA) program of the same name that became well known throughout the United States following the Edward Snowden revelations. Given this association, it is worth noting that the NSA, as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are now officially part of Operation Warp Speed and appear to be playing a role in the development of Warp Speed's "pharmacovigilance surveillance system." The addition of the NSA and the DHS to the initiative, of course, greatly increases the involvement of US intelligence agencies in the operation, which itself is "dominated" by the military and sorely lacking in civilian public health officials.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the US military attempted to institute a surveillance program so invasive that Congress defunded it just months after its creation due to public outrage. Known as Total Information Awareness (TIA), the program sought to develop an all-seeing surveillance apparatus managed by the Pentagon's DARPA and officially argued that invasive surveillance of the entire US population was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, bioterrorism events, and even naturally occurring disease outbreaks before they could take place.
Before it was disbanded, TIA sought to collect Americans' medical records; fingerprints; gait, facial, and iris biometric data; drug prescriptions; and even DNA in addition to citizens' financial, travel, and media-consumption habits. TIA, not unlike Operation Warp Speed, was a "public-private partnership" managed by the DOD and partnered with the NSA, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies as well as the private sector and academia.
Also like Warp Speed, TIA officially justified its invasive surveillance goals by claiming that its initiatives would rescue Americans from the "invisible enemy" of faceless terrorists abroad and ensure citizens' safety, security, and health. Today, Warp Speed officially takes aim at a new type of "invisible enemy"—a microbe invisible to the naked human eye.
In the years after 9/11, the public pushback against TIA was fierce. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claimed at the time that the surveillance effort would "kill privacy in America" because "every aspect of our lives would be catalogued," while mainstream media outlets warned that TIA was "fighting terror by terrifying U.S. citizens." Despite Congress officially defunding the program, it later emerged that TIA was never actually shut down, with its various programs having been covertly divided among the web of military and intelligence agencies that comprise the US national security state.
Allowing these same entities to surveil and track a majority of Americans and to use the country's population as guinea pigs for unlicensed, understudied, and experimental vaccine technologies is a clear recipe for disaster. At the same time, it would also enable a surveillance panopticon so dystopian and far reaching that Americans stand to lose not only their few remaining civil liberties but even sovereignty over their own bodies.
Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna's "95% effective" vaccines—let's be cautious and first see the full data - The BMJ
In the United States, all eyes are on Pfizer and Moderna. The topline efficacy results from their experimental covid-19 vaccine trials are astounding at first glance. Pfizer says it recorded 170 covid-19 cases (in 44,000 volunteers), with a remarkable split: 162 in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Meanwhile Moderna says 95 of 30,000 volunteers in its ongoing trial got covid-19: 90 on placebo versus 5 receiving the vaccine, leading both companies to claim around 95% efficacy.
Let's put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials' primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine's ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations.
"I think we need to be careful, as we get vaccinated, not to over-interpret the results," Zaks told Axios in a TV interview released Monday. "When we start the deployment of this vaccine, we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission."
"Independent fact-checkers" – i.e., third party companies contracted by Facebook, Twitter, Google and others to, all too often arbitrarily decide what is true and what is false, are at it again – this time taking on two Oxford scientists.
Their article about a study looking at the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of face masks when worn to prevent coronavirus infection, originally published in The Spectator, the world's oldest weekly magazine, and shared on Facebook, got flagged as "false information."
This happened to the consternation of its authors, one of them being Professor Carl Heneghan, who posted about the incident on Twitter where he has some 70,000 followers.
Heneghan said that no information contained in the article was false, indicating that he is aware a similar sort of censorship is happening to other Facebook users, and wondering, "What has happened to academic freedom and freedom of speech?"
Government responses to COVID 19 are often said to be "led by science." However what we are seeing is the widespread censorship of science to support a narrative. It seems anything that challenges the orthodox view is ignored, banned or undermined. While this persists no government can claim their polices are "led by science."
We contrast the statement about COVID 19 of four eminently qualified scientists. Dr Mike Yeadon, Sir Patrick Vallance, Chris Witty and Dr. Roger Hodkinson. All four should be heard but only two are. While Patrick Vallance and Chris Witty given the maximum public exposure Dr's Yeadon and Hodkinson are almost completely ignored by the politicians and the mainstream media and heavily censored on social media.
via The Highwire: HighWire goes to a place we've never gone before. Is there something more behind the global coronavirus response? Why are so many leaders using the same language when talking about the future of their countries and the world? What is the Great Reset? Journalist James Corbett joins Del to separate facts from fiction.
"The bottom line is simply this: There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It's outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. Other than protecting older, more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season. This is not Ebola. It's not SARS. It's politics playing medicine and that's a very dangerous game."
"Health officials wanted to avoid what happened in hospitals in New York City, where refrigerated trailers were used as temporary morgues," warns the CBC (Coronavirus Broadcasting Corporation) in a recent Morning Brief.
Well, I doubt the cadavers minded whether they were in a truck or a basement; it's more sad that their families were not allowed to hold funeral services because of the unnecessary lockdown.
Either way, a rising curve probably had little to do with the New York oddity. More suspect were the the $39,000 payments dangled in front of hospital CEOs if they would rush patients on to ventilators (as many nurses have testified).
But any such backload of patients was not enough to max-out New York hospitals.
Yes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did indeed hand over $660 million to private construction companies to build field hospitals, according to an NPR analysis. "But nearly four months into the pandemic, most of these facilities haven't treated a single patient," reported NPR journalist, Joel Rose.
That included three in New York State.
"Great Reset" mastermind Klaus Schwab suggests a number of draconian measures for controlling the population under the umbrella of the '4th Industrial Revolution', including risk-assessment brain scans to cross borders and implantable chips to read people's thoughts.
The Danish randomized controlled trial on the real-world efficacy of face masks against coronavirus infection – the first of its kind – has now been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. As expected, the trial found no statistically significant benefit of wearing a face mask. The study used "high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%".
"if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%."
Compared with normal years, there have been more deaths at home from a number of major causes, including cancers and respiratory diseases, during the last six months.
The New England Journal of Medicine has published a study that goes to the heart of the issue of lockdowns. The question has always been whether and to what extent a lockdown, however extreme, is capable of suppressing the virus. If so, you can make an argument that at least lockdowns, despite their astronomical social and economic costs, achieve something. If not, nations of the world have embarked on a catastrophic experiment that has destroyed billions of lives, and all expectation of human rights and liberties, with no payoff at all.
Dentists are warning about the health issues tied to prolonged use of a mask to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
They said dental problems associated with "mask mouth," including gum disease, could lead to serious complications.
"Gum disease — or periodontal disease — will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks," Marc Sclafani, a dentist and co-founder of One Manhattan Dental, told the New York Post about "mask mouth," which is increasingly causing inflammation and gum disease among patients.
Another dentist and co-founder at One Manhattan Dental, Rob Ramondi, said 50% of his patients are suffering from negative health issues due to mask-wearing.
"We're seeing inflammation in people's gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before," Ramondi said. "About 50% of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it 'mask mouth' — after 'meth mouth.'"
Objective:Health - Where Did the Flu Go? UPDATE: Banned From YouTube -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net
Scientists are apparently "baffled" by the seeming disappearance of the flu this year. An infection that has been with the human race for centuries (if not longer), has seen a 98% plummet this year. The Southern hemisphere, which is already past its peak flu season, essentially skipped the flu this year. So where did it go?
12bytes says: I'll tell ya where it went; flu deaths will now be added to the COVID19 tally to make it scarier than it is, assuming that SARS-CoV-2 exists at all since apparently the virus has yet to be *properly* isolated.
Mainstream media is ignoring the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday that struck down Democrat Governor Tony Evers' Covid-19 stay-at-home order, stating that his administration overstepped its authority when it extended it for another month without consulting legislators. The 4-3 ruling essentially reopens the state, lifting caps on the size of gatherings, allowing people to travel as they please and allowing shuttered businesses to reopen, including bars and restaurants.
Elon Musk Questions COVID-19 Testing After Receiving Opposite Results On The Same Day – Collective Evolution
Elon Musk recently revealed he had completed four rounds of COVID-19 testing, tweeting that something "bogus" is going on because two of the tests came back false, and the other two came back positive.
12bytes says: Don't assume for a second that this is an isolated incident of problems with testing. This is wide-spread, especially in the case of RT-PCR testing which is *wildly* inaccurate for several reasons, one of them being that PCR is a procedure, not a test, and another being that a 'positive' or 'negative' result (PCR doesn't actually produce a binary result) can be preselected based on how many times the sample is cycled and, apparently, many/most labs are doing in excess of 35 cycles which heavily biases the result toward a 'positive' one (and this comes from the infamous criminal psychopath, "doctor" Fauci himself).
From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the clarion call has been to test, test and test some more. However, right from the start, serious questions arose about the tests being used to diagnose this infection, and questions have only multiplied since then.
Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have been used as the justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down for the better part of 2020.
This, despite the fact that PCR tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and aren't designed to be used as a diagnostic tool in the first place as they cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.
Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer, has even gone on record stating1 that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to "manufacture a 'second wave' based on 'new cases,'" when in fact a second wave is highly unlikely.
With Europe and parts of the US headed for more Lockdowns, Journalist and former White House official, Darren Beattie, has incredible insight into the impact of Covid lockdowns so far. Are we losing far more lives than we are saving? This story is too important to miss.
In order for tyrants to claim and retain total power, the people must become ignorant of their own history and roots, and must through propaganda and fear be so terrified as to abandon all logic and responsibility in order to seek a false safety. In this country today, history and tradition are being destroyed, while the ruling class and government have stoked immense fear based on a propaganda campaign that was used to create a make-believe threat called Covid-19. Every element is now in place to transfer all power to the state, and in order for that coup to be successful for the tyrants, all dissent and disobedience to totalitarian mandates must be squelched. The key element to accomplish this lies in the ability for the government to instill division and distrust among the people themselves; so much so, that the masses turn on each other to assure compliance to order to have a false sense of security. This leads to voluntary servitude, which is vital to the evil governing system, because once force is the only option for the state, chaos, revolution, or violent civil unrest will replace tyranny.
With this in mind, the plot to achieve an economic and technological reset is being pursued through lies and propaganda at every level, including the use of the military within the boundaries of the United States.
A vaccine that protects against symptoms of Covid-19 could contribute to the spread of the disease if—and this is still just an if—the people who get vaccinated remain capable of carrying and transmitting the virus.
Mom Explodes in Anger after Child Passes Out Wearing Mask at School – Comply Rather than Resist and You Put the Lives of Your Children at Risk
In a video that is going viral today, one mother records her rant against mandatory face masks for children in school, after her son passed out wearing a mask during a Physical Education class at school.
Official data is 'exaggerating' the risk of Covid, 500 academics tell Boris Johnson | Daily Mail Online
The doctors and scientists said the Government's response to the coronavirus pandemic has become 'disproportionate' and that mass testing has distorted the risk of the virus.
They said tests are likely to be producing high numbers of 'false positive' results and the Government must do more to put infection and death rates within the context of normal seasonal rates.
It's so interesting to see the media not even mention COVID-19 or social distancing when hundreds gather to celebrate Joe Biden's "projected victory" but that same media just weeks ago said Trump rallies "could kill thousands" because of the lack of social distancing.
NHS nurse publicly resigns and reveals the lying statistics and fear being used by government.
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings | CDC
This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.
What is the Shielding Approach1?
The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease ("high-risk") and the general population ("low-risk"). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or "green zones" established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.
Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.3 In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.4,5 For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.
In theory, shielding may serve its objective to protect high-risk populations from disease and death. However, implementation of the approach necessitates strict adherence1,6,7, to protocol. Inadvertent introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission among the most vulnerable populations the approach is trying to protect.
A summary of the shielding approach described by Favas is shown in Table 1. See Guidance for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among high-risk individuals in low-resource, displaced and camp and camp-like settings 1,2 for full details.
A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together.
One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.
Dedicated staff need to be identified to monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.
Even with community involvement, there may be a risk of stigmatization.11,12 Isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems.
Additionally, many camps and settlements host multiple nationalities which may require additional separation, for example, Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya accommodates refugees from 19 countries.16
Consideration: Plan for an extended duration of implementation time, at least 6 months.
Explanation: The shielding approach proposes that green zones be maintained until one of the following circumstances arises: (i) sufficient hospitalization capacity is established; (ii) effective vaccine or therapeutic options become widely available; or (iii) the COVID-19 epidemic affecting the population subsides.
Given the limited resources and healthcare available to populations in humanitarian settings prior to the pandemic, it is unlikely sufficient hospitalization capacity (beds, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and staff) will be achievable during widespread transmission. The national capacity in many of the countries where these settings are located (e.g., Chad, Myanmar, and Syria) is limited. Resources may become quickly overwhelmed during the peak of transmission and may not be accessible to the emergency affected populations.
Vaccine trials are underway, but with no definite timeline. Reaching the suppression phase where the epidemic subsides can take several months and cases may resurge in a second or even third wave. Herd immunity (the depletion of susceptible people) for COVID-19 has not been demonstrated to date. It is also unclear if an infected person develops immunity and the duration of potential immunity is unknown. Thus, contingency plans to account for a possibly extended operational timeline are critical.
Separating families and disrupting and deconstructing multigenerational households may have long-term negative consequences. Shielding strategies need to consider sociocultural gender norms in order to adequately assess and address risks to individuals, particularly women and girls. 18,19,20 Restrictive gender norms may be exacerbated by isolation strategies such as shielding. At the household level, isolating individuals and limiting their interaction, compounded with social and economic disruption has raised concerns of potential increased risk of partner violence. Households participating in house swaps or sector-wide cohorting are at particular risk for gender-based violence, harassment, abuse, and exploitation as remaining household members may not be decision-makers or responsible for households needs.18,19,20
Consideration: Plan for potential disruption of social networks.
Explanation: Community celebrations (religious holidays), bereavement (funerals) and other rites of passage are cornerstones of many societies. Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.21,22
Consideration: Ensure mental health and psychosocial support*,23 structures are in place to address increased stress and anxiety.
Explanation: Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.
Household-level shielding seems to be the most feasible and dignified as it allows for the least disruption to family structure and lifestyle, critical components to maintaining compliance. However, it is most susceptible to the introduction of a virus due to necessary movement or interaction outside the green zone, less oversight, and often large household sizes. It may be less feasible in settings where family shelters are small and do not have multiple compartments.
The shielding approach is intended to alleviate stress on the healthcare system and circumvent the negative economic consequences of long-term containment measures and lockdowns by protecting the most vulnerable.1,24,25 Implementation of this approach will involve careful planning, additional resources, strict adherence and strong multi-sector coordination, requiring agencies to consider the potential repercussion among populations that have collectively experienced physical and psychological trauma which makes them more vulnerable to adverse psychosocial consequences.