Deaths from COVID-19 Vaccines are Increasing, & the CDC is Whitewashing It

The COVID-19 Vaccine story gets murkier and murkier by the day. To document all the chicanery, lies and conflicts of interest surrounding this issue would constitute a full time job for an army of researchers.

Today, I'm going to focus on the highly influential - and terribly dishonest - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The death toll from the COVID vaccines continues to climb - and the CDC is adamantly insisting the deaths are purely coincidental.

In my recent articles, I've been quoting adverse event report numbers for the two vaccines currently available in the US: The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA 'vaccines' (which, of course, are not really vaccines but gene-modifying drugs). These figures are published on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) website, which is run by the CDC, which is part of the US Department of Health & Human Services which, in turn, is part of the bureaucratic behemoth that is the US Government.

Now ... as I write this, it is Saturday afternoon, 20 February 2021, here in the penal colony known as Australia. I've got the VAERS website open, and am doing a search for the number of deaths reported for COVID-19 vaccines.

It shows that, for VAERS reports processed as of 12 February 2021 (the most recent data dump), there have been 799 deaths reported for COVID-19 vaccines in the US and territories since their rollout in December 2020. Of these, 378 were reported for the Moderna drug, 417 for the Pfizer-BioNTech drug. For the remaining 4 deaths, the vaccine manufacturer is unknown.

A week ago, the death count was 602.

The VAERS website is the official US repository for vaccine adverse event reports - it's where everyone is directed to look when seeking the latest figures on untoward events associated with the new COVID 'vaccines.' As noted earlier, the most recent data dump for vaccine adverse events occurred on 12 February 2021.

However, at a lesser known page on the CDC website, COVID-19 vaccine figures are provided through to 14 February 2021. As of this writing, the text at that page states:

"Over 52 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through February 14, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 934 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine."

So as of 14 February 2021, almost 1,000 Americans had died soon after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. That number, of course, is but a fraction of the real death toll, because only a small portion of adverse events are ever reported to VAERS.

Meanwhile, none of the clinical trials for these drugs have shown they can save a single life.

CDC: Centers for Dissemination of Codswallop and Poppycock

Despite the worrying adverse event reports, the CDC wants you to believe the new, poorly tested COVID vaccines are safe as cherry pie. The CDC writes, in bold type, "To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines."

The CDC further claims: "A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records findings revealed no link with vaccination."

But don't worry, because the "CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS."

And, of course, both agencies will continue their appalling denial campaign.

The CDC wants you to believe that when healthy young people like 36-year-old Dr Barton Williams inexplicably die a month after receiving their second COVID vaccine shot, it could not possibly be the vaccine.

Dr Williams reportedly died from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition caused when the immune system attacks the body resulting in multi-system organ failure.

But do not fear, the CDC is here, investigating the death with help from a Dr Stephen Threlkeld, an infectious disease specialist who reportedly treated Williams. Threlkeld said "it is believed" Williams previously had an asymptomatic case of COVID.

It is further "believed" that this infection, so weak it did not cause symptoms, lay dormant until a month after his second shot, at which point it suddenly unleashed a fatal bout of the normally rare multisystem inflammatory syndrome.

At this point, it's worth noting the term "it is believed" is often used as a euphemism for "no convincing evidence is available to support this belief, but it is our preferred version of events and the one we're going to run with!"

And that is indeed the case here. There are numerous problems with Threlkeld's theory, which conveniently absolves the vaccine. One is that not only did Williams never exhibit any symptoms of COVID, he also tested negative for COVID-19 while in the hospital.

Threlkeld claimed testing found two types of antibodies in Williams' system - one type that results from a natural COVID infection, and a second type of antibody from the vaccine.

And you can guess which one is at fault, according to Threlkeld and the CDC. It must be the COVID infection he may have had rather than the vaccine he definitely received, because Threlkheld claimed "everyone who has had this (multisystem inflammatory syndrome), has had the infection ... There has been no case published yet of someone who has been documented to have this problem, who has been vaccinated in the past."

After this bout of circular reasoning, Threlkeld adds the coup de grâce: He told the press one way to avoid multisystem inflammatory syndrome would be to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

And so, just like that, a death linked to a COVID-19 vaccine is magically turned into an advertisement for COVID-19 vaccines!

However, there is one inescapable problem with Threlkeld's story:

It's utter garbage.

His claim that "everyone" who gets multisystem inflammatory syndrome has had COVID-19 is so nonsensical it borders on insane.

To listen to most media reports, you'd think multisystem inflammatory syndrome was something that emerged alongside COVID-19. However, a quick Pubmed search shows multisystem inflammatory syndromes have been documented in adults and children going back at least as far as 1978.

A 2016 paper, authored almost 4 years before COVID-19 appeared, documented the occurrence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome following pneumococcal vaccination.

An extensive 2019 review by Italian researchers stated unequivocally, "The relationship between vaccines and neuroinflammation have consistent molecular biology bases ... All vaccines can cause neuroinflammation." Their review focused on the relationship between HPV vaccines and chronic pain, and noted "Sustained increase of cytokines and chemokines in the central nervous system also promotes chronic widespread pain that affects multiple body sites."

So regardless of what Threlkeld, the CDC and the media would like you to believe, multisystem inflammatory syndrome is not unique to COVID-19 patients and there is already a track record of vaccines causing systemic inflammation syndromes.

And with the mass rollout of COVID vaccines, the problem looks set to get worse.

In Israel, a 23-year-old man developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome only 24 hours after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Professor Dror Mevorach told Israel media: “We found out that the young man had contracted the coronavirus asymptomatically before he was vaccinated." If we accept the explanation of Thekeldt and CDC, the vaccine therefore had nothing to do with it. Nope, the asymptomatic virus inexplicably waited until 24 hours after the young man received his shot before unleashing a body-wide bout of severe inflammation.

Professor Mevorach is not convinced of this unlikely explanation: "It may be accidental but I would not underestimate it. Care must be taken in vaccination of people who were sick with coronavirus in the past.”

The Jewish Post also reported that, in the three weeks since the start of the coronavirus vaccination campaign, two elderly people died a few hours after receiving the vaccine. In the first case, a 75-year-old man died as a result of heart failure a mere two hours after the injection. The next day, an 88-year-old man collapsed in his home hours after the vaccination and was later pronounced dead. The Hadassah Mount Scopus Hospital reported that the deceased suffered from prolonged, complex and severe underlying conditions. No-one, apparently, questioned the wisdom of giving a new and poorly tested drug to such a patient.

Israel's Ministry of Health, right on cue, "estimated" there was no connection between the deaths and the vaccine.

More recently, on 15 February, Israel's Channel 12 News reported the Health Ministry recently diagnosed 10 cases of people who developed multisystem inflammation "in the vicinity" of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. While the Health Ministry was still publicly insisting "no link" has been found between the vaccine and syndrome, it was decided to establish a committee to examine the issue of post-vaccination morbidity, headed by Professor Mevorach.

Nothing to See Here, Now Move Along!

We are also supposed to believe there was no connection between the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine and the death of "perfectly healthy" Gregory Michael. The 56-year old Florida doctor who died just 16 days after receiving the first dose of the COVID vaccine on 18 December 2020. The otherwise healthy Michael developed the rare blood disorder thrombocytopenia after receiving the vaccine, and died on 3 January 2021 after suffering a brain hemorrhage.

Pfizer said in a self-serving statement: "We are actively investigating this case, but we don't believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine." Michael's wife, Heidi Neckelmann, has no doubt his death was caused by the vaccine. "He was a very healthy 56-year-old" who "delivered hundreds of healthy babies and worked tirelessly through the pandemic," she said in a Facebook post. Michael was an avid tournament and big game fisherman as well as a rescue-certified scuba diver.

Ironically, Michael was a vaccine advocate, his wife said, before raising doubts about its safety.

In Portugal, heartbroken father Abilio Acevedo was demanding answers after his daughter died two days after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Health worker and mother-of-two Sonia Acevedo, 41, received the injection on 30 December 2020 and suffered a sudden death at home on New Year’s Day. Abilio told daily newspaper Correio da Manha: "She was okay. She hadn’t had any health problems."

We are supposed to trust the sleazy CDC and the rest of our hopelessly dishonest health authorities when they tell us these deaths were just a pure coincidence.

But when people with multiple health conditions die with - not from COVID-19 - we are supposed to sit quietly by while their death is added to the absurdly exaggerated official COVID-19 death count. In most countries, the COVID-19 death count is overwhelmingly dominated by elderly people with multiple co-morbidities and nursing home residents, the latter being so frail they need to be housed in an aged care facility. But if these people die with COVID-19, or "suspected" COVID-19, then that - and not their far more serious health conditions - is listed as the cause.

When charlatans-posing-as-scientists like Anthony Fauci and Joanne Birx nonchalantly tell the press the US has taken a "liberal" approach to mortality and is counting fatal heart attacks and kidney failures as COVID deaths (!), we are supposed to accept this staggering dishonesty as an acceptable practice.

We are even supposed to sit by as murder-suicides by firearm are counted as COVID deaths because, hey, the victim and perpetrator tested positive for COVID within 30 days of their deaths!

Sadly, humans being the largely dumb, compliant and gullible pack of sods they are, have done just that: Sat idly by while authorities have fed them a constant stream of egregious bullshit. And they continue to do so.

It's about time people pulled their heads from their posteriors, and weaned themselves from the constant stream of mind-numbing electronic dope fed to them by Big Tech and the major networks. The so-called 'experts' these networks cite in support of the coronavirus sham are, to be blunt, largely a bunch of lying shonks with financial ties to the drug and diagnostic industries.

Meet the Real Purveyors of Fake News

When the World Health Organization conveniently introduced new cause of death codes that permitted the diagnosis of COVID-19 on death certificates even when no actual evidence of COVID-19 was present ("U07.2 COVID-19, virus not identified"), the CDC did not object.

To the contrary, the CDC embraced this sham with vigor.

In an alert dated 24 March 2020, Steven Schwartz, Director of the Division of Vital Statistics at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, gave the following advice to doctors in Q&A style:

"What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?

If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code. It is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases. [Bold emphasis added] Should 'COVID-19' be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test? COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death." [Bold emphasis added]

The CDC has spoken: Uncertainty and a lack of pathology results are no impediment to officially "assuming" a “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19” death - even though testing for active COVID-19 is no more invasive than taking a nasal or throat swab!

Schwartz's easy-going approach to ascribing COVID-19 as a cause of death was reflected in another CDC advisory, issued in April, which told physicians:

"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible."[Bold emphasis added]

What doctors are basically being told is, “it would be nice if you did actual testing but, hey, if you don’t – no stress. We’re happy to accept ‘probable’ and ‘assumed’ COVID-19, even though the diagnostic procedure is no more complicated than taking a quick swab. Don’t even begin to worry about repercussions for ascribing the wrong cause of death, because we’re not going to double-check any deaths ascribed to COVID-19.”

But while happy to adopt a blissfully laissez-faire approach to assigning COVID-19 as a cause of death, the tables suddenly turn when it comes to holding COVID-19 vaccines accountable for their increasing death toll. All of a sudden, a new standard applies, one that forbids blaming the vaccines even when otherwise inexplicable sudden deaths occur in perfectly healthy people who recently received the vaccine.

The CDC, quite frankly, is full of shit. It has absolutely no credibility on this issue whatsoever.

As to why the CDC adheres to such absurd double-standards, a quick look at its dubious financial connections is telling.

CDC: Acting in the Private Interest

"The CDC is a disgrace. It is a corrupt organization," said Stephen A. Sheller, a Philadelphia attorney who has sued vaccine makers. "The drug companies have them on their payroll."

He's right, you know.

The CDC promotes itself as an impartial disseminator of vital health information, but in reality it is both a vaccine business and a promotional arm of the drug and diagnostic industries.

A Google patent search using "centers for disease control and prevention" as the assignee and "vaccine" as an additional search term returns 956 vaccine-related results.

Since the 1980s, the CDC has held licensing agreements with companies and universities for vaccines or vaccine-related products, and has collaborated with industry and academia on new vaccines.

Such collaborations might not be so bad might if they facilitated the discovery of truly useful and beneficial new drugs. But, as you're about to learn, the fruits of the union between CDC and industry are often quite rotten.

The underlying problem is that, while the CDC pretends to act in the public interest, it is beholden to industry.

Of course, the CDC won't admit this to you. It repeatedly states on its website that "CDC, our planners, presenters, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters."

This is a brazen lie.

As BMJ reported in 2015, "Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly."

And it has done so for a long time. Way back in 1983, Congress authorized the CDC to accept external "gifts" from industry and private parties. In 1992, Congress passed further legislation to encourage relationships between industry and CDC by creating the 'non-profit' CDC Foundation, which began operating in 1995.

Between 1995 and 2014, BMJ reported, the CDC Foundation had received funding from more than 150 corporate “partners.”

In fiscal year 2014, the CDC Foundation raised $52 million, $12 million of that from corporations. The CDC itself in fiscal year 2014 received $16m in "conditional" (read: strings attached) funding from sources such as corporations, individuals, and philanthropy, including the CDC Foundation. The latter observation indicates the CDC Foundation acts as a pass-through organization, where industry funding can be disguised as philanthropy.

Conditional donations are earmarked for specific projects, and it's not hard to deduce the true motivation for many of these gifts. In 2012, for example, Genentech gave $600,000 to the CDC to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Which served Genentech and its parent company, Roche, nicely, as they manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C.

Janssen also contributed $1.5m to the CDC Foundation in 2012-13,1 and in 2011-12 contributors included Merck ($915,149), Genzyme ($762,000), Sanofi-Aventis ($600,000), and Abbott Laboratories ($550,000).

In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the US and globally. By the time BMJ wrote its 2015 article, industry had donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens — all of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection.

Even after the CDC and its foundation were criticized for accepting a directed donation from Roche for the agency’s Take 3 flu campaign (Step 3 tells the public to “take antiviral medicine if your doctor prescribes it”), the CDC posted an article on its website entitled, “Why CDC Recommends Influenza Antiviral Drugs.” The agency cited multiple industry-funded studies, including a meta-analysis by Dobson et al which it described as an “independent” study. This was yet another act of dishonesty by the CDC, because it knew full well the study was sponsored by Roche and that all four authors had financial ties to Roche, Genentech, or Gilead (the first two sell oseltamivir a.k.a Tamiflu and Gilead holds the patent).

The CDC claimed oseltamivir “save lives” even as the FDA warned Roche it could not make that claim in its marketing because the antiviral “has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza.” In other words, there was no evidence the drug worked, but CDC Director Thomas Frieden was publicly claiming otherwise. This is another way in which the highly influential and largely unaccountable CDC assists its close friends in industry - by making dubious claims of efficacy that drug companies themselves are prohibited by law from making in their own advertisements.

Industry 'donations' to the CDC have proven to be very fruitful investments. Figures from 2018 show the CDC bought and distributed $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which was over 40% of its total budget.

The CDC Looks the Other Way When its Members Have Blatant Financial Conflicts of Interest

A 2000 Committee on Government Reform investigation chaired by Dan Burton, R-Indiana, was highly critical of the links between the CDC (and FDA) and vaccine companies. They observed that members of FDA and CDC committees that approve and recommend vaccines, including the chair of these committees, owned stock in drug companies that make vaccines.

Further, individuals on both advisory committees owned patents for vaccines under consideration, or affected by the decisions of the committees.

The CDC granted conflict of interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time, and allowed full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member, whether they had a financial stake in the decision or not.

The CDC's advisory committee had no public members, so no parents or other concerned parties had a vote in whether or not a vaccine belonged on the childhood immunization schedule. The FDA's committee only had one public member. Meaning, decisions to approve and recommend these drugs were made by a small closed circle of self-interested, industry-connected figures.

The investigating committee gave a number of specific examples, including Dr John Modlin, who served for 4 years on the CDC advisory committee and became the chair in February 1998. He participated in the FDA's committee as well. During this time, his CV shows he worked as a consultant on antiviral drug development for Schering-Plough, sat on the Childhood Vaccines Advisory Board of Sanofi Aventis and the Immunization Advisory Board of Merck's Vaccine Division (Modlin now works for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).

As is sadly par for the course in the medical arena, Modlin has also acted as a peer reviewer for a host of medical journals, including those focusing on infectious diseases, despite his extensive ties to Big Pharma.

The investigation also found Modlin owned $26,000 of stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of the rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield) that both his CDC and FDA committees unanimously approved. Pre-licensing studies found RotaShield increased the risk of intussusception, a normally rare type of bowel obstruction afflicting mostly children, in which the bowel folds in on itself. There were also concerns, noted the investigating committee, about children failing to thrive and developing high fevers, which can lead to brain injury.

Despite this, the hopelessly vested CDC and FDA committees voted unanimously to approve RotaShield.

Serious problems began shortly after RotaShield was introduced. The vaccine was pulled from the US market in October 1999 after VAERS reports showed the vaccine increased the risk of serious bowel obstructions in children by 4- to 9-fold.

Another member of the CDC's advisory committee was Dr Paul Offit, who has become quite the media darling in recent years when it comes to vaccines. If only journalists did their research - like the Burton committee did. The latter found Offit voted on three rotavirus issues, including making the recommendation of adding the ill-fated RotaShield to the Vaccines for Children program. Offit disclosed to the investigation that he held a patent on a rotavirus vaccine and received grant money from Merck to develop this vaccine. He also disclosed he was paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe.

In 2010, Offit even had the temerity to author a book titled Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. I'm guessing his book doesn't have much to say about the very real threat posed by industry-affiliated bureaucrats who are allowed to approve and recommend dangerous drugs that will be unleashed upon millions of innocent, unsuspecting people.

Offit is now a member of the FDA vaccine advisory board and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

A Leopard Never Changes its Spots

Almost a decade later, little had changed. In 2009, the inspector general of the US Department of Health and Human Services scrutinized the 'experts' who served on CDC advisory panels in 2007 to evaluate flu and cervical cancer vaccines. The report found 64% of the advisers had potential conflicts of interest that were never identified or were left unresolved by the CDC. Thirteen percent failed to have an appropriate conflicts form on file at the agency at all, which should have barred their participation in the meetings entirely. And 3 percent voted on matters that ethics officers had already barred them from considering.

Most of the advisers had either a job or a grant from a company or other entity whose interests were affected by the committees’ discussions, and a considerable number also owned stock in such companies, the report said.

Also in 2009, Dr Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stepped down from her government job to become president of Merck’s vaccine division. Gerberding led the CDC from 2002 to 2009, ample time to cultivate plenty of goodwill with the likes of Merck.

In July 2017, physician Brenda Fitzgerald was appointed to head the CDC. Shortly after she joined the agency, she went on a stock buying spree that cast serious doubts over her ethics and values. Along with promoting vaccination, the CDC is also supposed to be convincing Americans to quit smoking. But one month into her leadership of the CDC, she bought stock in Japan Tobacco - one of the largest such companies in the world, which sells four tobacco brands in the US through a subsidiary. Prior to accepting the CDC position, she owned stock in five other tobacco companies: Reynolds American, British American Tobacco, Imperial Brands, Philip Morris International, and Altria Group Inc.

Fitzgerald was effectively betting against the CDC's anti-tobacco campaign. Why a CDC insider would effectively short one of her agency's key health campaigns, Fitzgerald never explained.

Other share purchases made after becoming head of the CDC included "between $1,001 and $15,000 each" of stock in in Merck & Co. and Bayer.

While holding the newly purchased stocks, Fitzgerald participated in meetings related to polio, Zika and Ebola. Merck, whose stock Fitzgerald purchased on 9 August 2017, had been working on developing an Ebola vaccine. Bayer, whose stock she purchased on 10 August, had previously partnered with the CDC Foundation to prevent the spread of the Zika virus.

The day after the revelations were published by Politico, Fitzgerald resigned. She remained silent on her resignation, but a DHHS statement cited her "complex" financial investments.

Fitzgerald was selected for the position in July 2017 by Health and Human Services Secretary Dr Tom Price. Price himself was forced to resign in September 2017 amid a scandal involving his use of private planes, for trips that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

CDC Scientists Expose Agency Corruption

Not everyone at the CDC is a shonk. In 2016, a group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or (CDC SPIDER), compiled a list of complaints in a letter to CDC Chief of Staff Carmen S. Villar. They also provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). The members of the group elected to file the complaint anonymously for fear of retribution.

The letter, which you can read in full here, said that widespread corruption was the norm, not the exception, at the CDC. The letter began:

"We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units."

The researchers cited the CDC's “cover up” of the poor performance of its WiseWoman Program, a women’s health screening and evaluation initiative throughout the US. There researchers cited "a coordinated effort by that Center to 'bury' the fact that screening numbers for the WW program were misrepresented in documents sent to Congress; screening numbers for 2014 and 2015 did not meet expectations despite a multi­million dollar investment; and definitions were changed and data 'cooked' to make the results look better than they were. Data were clearly manipulated in irregular ways. An 'internal review' that involved staff across CDC occurred and its findings were essentially suppressed so media and/or Congressional staff would not become aware of the problems. Now that both the media and Congresswoman DeLauro are aware of these issues, CDC staff have gone out of their way to delay FOIAs and obstruct any inquiry."

The researchers also cited “troubling” ties between soft drink giant Coca-Cola and two high-ranking CDC officials - Dr. Barbara Bowman who directed the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention and Dr. Michael Pratt, senior Advisor for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Bowman retired after revelations of an “irregular” relationship with Coca-Cola and a nonprofit corporate interest group set up by the company called the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Email communications obtained through FOIA requests revealed Bowman had been communicating regularly with - and offering guidance to - a leading Coca-Cola advocate seeking to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters.

Pratt, while working at the CDC, had also been working closely with ILSI, which advocates for the agenda of beverage and food industries. Several research papers co-written by Pratt were at least partly funded by Coca-Cola, and Pratt received industry funding to attend industry-sponsored events and conferences.

The CDC offers 'guidance' to the public on issues like obesity, heart disease and diabetes. But just how impartial can its musings on the dangers of excess sugar be, when chief figures at the agency have had close working ties to the world's biggest soft drink company?

Conclusion

As BMJ noted, "The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law."

And as Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, added, “The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias."

The truth is that the CDC is a hopelessly biased and dishonest bureaucracy with extensive ties to Big Pharma and other vested industry groups. When forced to choose between the public good or the interests of its close friends in industry, it routinely opts for the latter.

Keep that in mind whenever you are subject to its pro-COVID vaccine propaganda.

The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content on this substack is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this substack does so of their own volition and their own risk. The author/s accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this substack. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this substack immediately.