Chris Masterjohn's Notes on RFK Jr.'s The Real Anthony Fauci

A review of The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (2021) by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

While the main title of Kennedy's new book bears the name of Fauci, one need only read as far as the subtitle to realize that this book is much more broadly about the global overthrow of constitutional democracy. Fauci and Gates get special naming in the title because they built what I will call the Global Pharma Machine. The climax of the book, however, covers the rise of the biosecurity state that hijacked this machine to turn it from a profiteering scheme into a final overthrow of constitutional governance, with the major orchestrators being more behind-the-scenes members of the military-intelligence complex, with strong connections to the CIA. Nevertheless, Fauci and Gates even have a hand in that part.

What follows is not a critical review where I pull apart each of Kennedy's claims and check it against the evidence found in each of his 2,124 in-text citations. That's not to say that I didn't study the book carefully. Here are my notes:

Chris Masterjohn's Notes on RFK Jr.'s The Real Anthony Fauci

What you are about to read is how I see the world when I view it through the lens of Kennedy's book.

At the end, I include some personal reflections. Until then, I rely on the facts that Kennedy relays in the book to tell the story as I see it.

The Titular Characters

Let's start by outlining the two main characters from the title of the book.

Anthony Fauci

Fauci has been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH), for over 30 years. With a yearly salary of $417,608, Fauci is the highest-paid of all approximately four million federal employees. He makes even more money than the president. Yet, this is just his base pay. NIH employees are allowed to earn royalties from patents held by the NIH. Each employee can earn up to $150,000 per year for each patent. Fauci has never disclosed to the public how many patents he earns royalties from (although analysis of US patents bearing his name suggests there are eight). This, of course, is to say nothing of speaking fees he earns from companies whose drugs he brokers the approval of.

Fauci's public mandate as head of NIAID is to investigate and prevent not only infectious disease but allergic, autoimmune, and chronic disease. Since 1989, five years after he took over NIAID, asthma, eczema, food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and anaphylaxis have exploded. Autoimmune diseases like juvenile diabetes, rhematoid arthritis, Graves' disease, and Crohn's disease were practically unheard of before Fauci took power and are now epidemics. Diagnosed autism is up 100-fold. Chronic illnesses afflicted 12.8 percent of children when Fauci took power in 1984, and now afflict 54 percent of children. Over the same period of time, America went from one of the healthiest industrialized nations to having the highest infant mortality and lowest life expectancy from among them, and American children lost seven points in IQ. By the end of the decade, obesity, diabetes, and pre-diabetes are on track to debilitate 85% of Americans.

While these data do not show that Fauci caused the decline in public health that occurred while he was in office, in any other sector he would be removed from office as a failure. For example, if he were an elected official, his opponent would ask voters, “do your kids have more allergies or fewer allergies than they did four years ago?” and voters would get rid of him. If he were the CEO of a company that lost a dollar for each chronic illness and gained a dollar for each such illness averted, he'd be fired for poor performance.

Fauci's tenure at NIAID only makes sense when we see him in a different light.

Fauci as a Power Broker

Fauci is best seen as a power broker. By controlling the flow of research dollars, by cutting off research dollars to scientists who veer in unapproved directions, by censuring journalists that if they say the wrong thing they will lose access to scientists, and by allowing pharmaceutical companies to cut corners and get away with bad science when they are on his side, Fauci has an army of scientists, doctors, journalists, and companies who learn to play his game. If they do his bidding well, they get the research dollars or access to scientists they need. If they don't, they get shut out.

In 2010, Fauci told New Yorker writer Michael Specter that his political playbook was The Godfather and that his favorite line from it was “It's nothing personal, it's strictly business.”

Fauci as An Authoritarian

Fauci's authoritarian tendencies are best demonstrated by his handling of AIDS, where he used his control of research funding and threats to journalists to quash dissent. His megalomaniacal June 9, 2021 declaration that “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science,” could be fully forecast by his entire handling of AIDS, in which he decided that he, and no one else, was the final arbiter of acceptable science.

Kennedy devotes four entire chapters to this topic. He does not take the position that HIV is not a cause of AIDS. “For the record,” he writes, “I believe that HIV is a cause of AIDS, but… causation is more complex than the official theology.” This is clear from the fact that only half of AIDS patients have HIV, that huge numbers of HIV-infected individuals never develop AIDS, and that non-HIV AIDS often occurs in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), a connection never adequately followed up on.

Kennedy takes no position on which of the alternative hypotheses are true, but describes a number that he believes clearly have enough merit to be investigated. These include the toxicity of nitrite “poppers,” heavily marketed by the pharmaceutical industry toward gays in the 1980s, the toxicity of AZT, used as a drug to treat HIV and supposedly delay the development of AIDS, other viruses such as human herpes virus 6 (HHV6), and mycoplasma. While Kennedy doesn't subscribe to the hypothesis that HIV is merely a free rider (maintained by Peter Duesberg), or that HIV is entirely generated from within human cells (maintained by Eleni Papadopulos and Val Turner), he believes these hypotheses should be acknowledged and considered.

Fauci, who later declared himself in June 2021 to be science itself, responded to these nuances of evidence and diversity of hypotheses by declaring HIV as the sole cause of AIDS and shutting down any dissent.

Peter Duesberg, a Berkley molecular biologist and pioneer in cancer genetics, had been awarded every single NIH grant he had applied for prior to 1987. Ever since 1987 when he ran into loggerheads with Fauci, however, every single one of his 30 NIH proposals was rejected. Duesberg has been tarnished as an “AIDS denialist,” yet even Luc Montagnier, who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his disocvery of HIV, had stated at the San Francisco International AIDS Conference in 1990 that “HIV might be benign.”

In fact, Fauci even cut off funding for HHV6 research, even though the HHV6 hypothesis was pioneered by Robert Gallo. Gallo had essentially stolen HIV from Montagnier. He was labeled as “co-discoverer” of it with Montagnier by agreement of the French and American governments, but rather than sharing the Nobel with Montagnier he was subject to two governmental ethics investigations. Gallo's research had been the basis of the Department of Health and Human Services (parent of NIH and the CDC) declaring that AIDS research would only receive funding if it conformed to the HIV hypothesis, yet even Gallo ran afoul of Fauci enough to have his HHV6 hypothesis consigned to history's dustbin of unfunded research.

In June of 1996, Fauci suddenly aborted a $16 million study involving about 100 independent scientists that was, in part, examining why many people with HIV never develop AIDS. The study was two years in, and Newsweek reported that Fauci abruptly cutting it off may have been retaliation for a group of younger scientists criticizing the NIH for only funding AIDS research centered on HIV.

Fauci doesn't just yank funding when people cross him. He wields his power over journalists too. In September, 1989, Fauci broadcast a threat to journalists who give a platform to Duesberg. “Journalists who have made too many mistakes or who are sloppy,” he threatened, “are going to find that their access to scientists may diminish.”

Kennedy alleges that Fauci cut off any funding that threatened his lucrative AIDS drug empire, built on using drugs like AZT to kill the HIV virus. Regardless of Fauci's ultimate motivations, Fauci transformed the practice of science — which should be about open-minded inquiry — into a process where he decided the boundaries of acceptable inquiry and scientists and journalists either fell in line or were cut off.

Fauci as Shrewd and Callous Toward Suffering

Kennedy portrays Fauci as shrewd, calculating, and callous toward the suffering of others, especially children. If this is accurate, it would go a long way toward explaining how Fauci seems unphased by the mushrooming of chronic disease that has occurred during his tenure.

The most chilling example of this from among many given in the book is his experiments on orphans and foster kids.

Between 1998 and 2002, Fauci oversaw AIDS drug experiments conducted on HIV-positive foster children, most of whom were poor and Black or Latino, many of whom were orphans. These occurred in New York City, New York State, and six other states. They were done under the auspices of NIAID with Fauci loyalists in charge of oversight. Large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Genetech, and Chiron/Biocine sponsored them and paid the foster care centers for use of the children. At least 465 children were involved in NYC, and more than two thirds of them were not even given an advocate, which is blatantly illegal. Later investigations revealed that many of the children were perfectly healthy and some weren't even shown to be infected with HIV.

The drugs used are known to be toxic to DNA, skin, internal organs, bone marrow, and the brain. If the children resisted the drugs, they were held down and force-fed. If they continued to resist, they were taken to the hospital and force-fed by stomach tube. At least 80 kids in the Manhattan experiments died and were reportedly buried in mass graves. In one mass grave found in Hawthorne, NY, there was a large pit covered in AstroTurf in which there were about 100 haphazardly stacked coffins. Most of the coffins had more than one child in them. A BBC documentary, Guinea Pig Kids, was made about these experiments.

On March 8, 2004, the NIH rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for the adverse event reports from those trials on the grounds of “trade secrets” and “privacy” exemptions. Two subsequent investigations by FDA and the Office of Human Research Protections confirmed that the trials deprived the foster kids of legally mandated protections against research risks.

In Kennedy's portrayal, Fauci seems to regard disadvantaged children as fodder for a huge profiteering machine, which he has constructed by establishing himself as global science's preeminent power broker and with his authoritarian silencing of dissent.

Bill Gates

Bill Gates is about one thing: monopoly.

He specializes in acquiring market share, no matter who he must screw over to get it.

Gates co-founded Microsoft in 1975 with Paul Allen, his closest boyhood friend. Seven years later Allen was suffering from cancer, radiation, and chemotherapy. Allen overheard Gates plotting with Microsoft's new manager, Steve Ballmer, how to dilute Allen's stake. Gates tried to buy him out of Microsoft at $5 a share, but he refused and later sold his stake when the company went public for a much higher price and left a billionaire.

In May of 1998, the Department of Justice and twenty state attorneys general launched an anti-trust suit at Microsoft, aiming to break it up. After an appeal, the breakup ultimately failed and Gates was charged $800,000 for his anti-competitive practices.

Gates Brings Monopoly to Public Health

While this was a slap on the wrist for the world's richest man, Gates wanted to rehabilitate his image. Thus was born the Children's Vaccine Program with its first $100 million. That year Gates also donated a $500 million grant from the William H. Gates Foundation (founded in 1994, becoming the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation later in 2000) to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), founded two years earlier by the Rockefeller Foundation, launching a new global initiative to develop a vaccine that would erase AIDS from the face of the earth (no luck yet).

In 2000, Gates invited Fauci to a dinner party in his mansion, then took Fauci alone into the library and said to him, “Tony, you run the biggest infectious disease institute of the world. And I want to be sure the money I spend is well spent. Why don't we really get to know each other? Why don't we be partners?”

Gates went on to send seismic waves of influence through global public health policy over the next two decades, using his vast sums of money to buy influence, ranging from acting as a public health thought leader to using the bully pulpit and even seeming, in the eyes of some, to have hand-picked the head of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Effectively, Gates turned his penchant for monopoly from computer software to global public health.

The legacy of his involvement in global public health is to have shifted international aid away from traditional priorities of economic development and access to basic medical devices, off-patent essential drugs, food, and clean water toward selling higher-priced, generally patented, drugs and vaccines.

Gates and his foundations own stock in drug and vaccine companies like Merck, GSK, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, Gilead, Biogen, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Novavax, and Inovio. So the money comes back around to Gates.

The most absurd example of how this is a complete derangement of priorities is the case of the polio vaccine. In 2011 and 2012 polio only affected 2-300 people per year in India and only 2000 people a year globally. Gates used his own funds as well as his bully pulpit to rally public funds from rich and poor nations alike to obliterate these last cases of a mostly eradicated disease. Only he used a cheap version of the vaccine containing live virus that itself became the major cause of polio across the globe. Incidence of diagnosed polio increased in India, and some Indian doctors blame the vaccine for additionally paralyzing almost half a million kids from “acute flaccid myelitis,” a disease that used to be called “polio” but has been renamed to avoid counting polio vaccine-induced neurological side effects as “polio.”

Meanwhile, in contrast to the ridiculously low yearly global incidence of polio, 840 million people don't have enough to eat, one billion lack clean water or access to sanitation, and one billion are illiterate. The diversion of international aid away from economic development and access to basic medical devices, basic medicines, food, and clean water may be killing a lot more people than it is saving. Kennedy cites an LA Times investigation finding that nations receiving the most Gates money suffer the greatest declines in children's health.

Gates Values Monopoly Over Public Health

That Gates is more interested in monopoly than saving lives is illustrated by his active defense of intellectual property when it comes into conflict with access to drugs and vaccines among poor countries. He advocated for the side of patents at the WHO in the late 1990s when Nelson Mandela was trying to get locally produced generic AIDS drugs in South Africa, and even opposed later attempts to create fully voluntary intellectual property pools for AIDS drugs.

In mid-2020, there was a movement at the WHO to create a voluntary intellectual property pool around COVID vaccines called C-TAP. Gates undermined it by promoting the COVID Vaccine Capacity Connector, a program that would make sure patents stayed with their original owners during any sharing of technology.

Gates Values Depopulation Over Combatting AIDS

In addition to his obsession with monopoly, Gates expressed interest in depopulating the world as early as the mid-1990s. At that time, the Gates Foundation was working with the Rockefeller and Andrew W Mellon Foundations, the UN Population Council, and USAID to distribute family planning materials in Ghana. In 1999, he committed $2.2 billion to the UN Population Panel and used $20 million to help found the Johns Hopkins Center for Population. In 2017, the Gates Foundation adopted the goal of distributing the long-term birth control shot, Depo-Provera, to 214 million women in poor countries.

In 2010, Gates gave a TED Talk where he suggested that “if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [the global population] by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. . .”

His apparent suggestion that vaccines could help reduce the population raised suspicions.

Defenders of Gates argued that his statement was poorly worded and the role of vaccines would be to reduce infant mortality and thereby convince poor families that they need not have so many children.

However, one incident calls this into question. It involves the Gates-founded, Gates-funded GAVI, originally the “Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations,” later rebranded as “Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.” GAVI was working with the WHO and UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Fund) to distribute tetanus vaccines to women in Ghana. In 2014, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops accused them of running a secret sterilization campaign against these women. The tetanus shots, usually given every ten years to everyone, were administered only to women of childbearing age, a total of five times, one shot every six months. The bishops later subjected the shots to chemical analysis showing they were contaminated with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). The WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation had been researching the use of tetanus toxoid hCG combinations to produce “sterilizing vaccines” as early as 1972. According to the analysis of the bishops, these women seemed to be dosed with such sterilizing vaccines without their knowledge or consent.

Gates also has a role in what Kennedy describes as the unethical promotion of Depo-Provera birth control shots in Africa.

The Depo-Provera shot is used in the United States overwhelmingly on poor Black women. Planned Parenthood specifically targets Blacks and Latinas in its promotion of the shot, and those who receive it are 84% Black and 74% poor. In the United States, FDA requires the drug to be distributed with a warning it can cause fatal bone loss. There are also reports of it causing menstrual irregularities, blood clots, stroke, weight gain, ectopic pregnancy, depression, hair loss, libido problems, and permanent infertility.

In Africa, the shot is distributed without these warnings. A 2011 report found that the collaboration between Gates, Rockefeller, Mellon, the Population Council, and USAID distributed the shot to 9000 women in Ghana without their informed consent, telling them they were receiving “routine healthcare” or “social observations.” According to the report, however, they were unknowingly part of a six-year experiment on the safety of the shot. Using this study as evidence of its safety, Gates expanded the use of the shot to 12 million more African women.

What is particularly striking is that women who get Depo-Provera have a much higher risk of contracting HIV. This puts a new spin on Gates' promotion of AIDS drugs and an AIDS vaccine:

  • First, Gates values depopulation over preventing HIV.
  • Second, Gates may even benefit from HIV arising as collateral damage from birth control shots. After all, it increases the demand for the drugs and vaccines Gates profits from distributing.

Thus, the overall role of Gates in global public health is to accrue monopoly power over public health institutions and drug and vaccine distribution while curbing world population growth, possibly at the expense of increasing morbidity and mortality across the globe.

Anatomy of The Global Pharma Machine

Kennedy uses the familiar term “Big Pharma” in his title. It seems to me, however, that over the course of nine chapters — chapters 2 through 10 — he maps out a global system that is far more concrete than simply being “Big.” I believe this system deserves a name, so I am tentatively christening it “The Global Pharma Machine.”

What follows is the basic anatomy of this machine, as I glean it from those nine chapters.

CDC and NIAID act as incubators for drugs and vaccines.

This model is generally true across agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that fund research. These include CDC as well as NIAID and the other NIH institutes.

Here is a typical example of how this works. NIAID funds the basic science for a new candidate pharmaceutical and patents it. Once the candidate appears promising, NIAID hands it over to a network of roughly 1,300 principal investigators (PIs) working for universities to conduct clinical trials on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies who will wind up selling the drug and who provide the lion's share of the funding. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent of both CDC and NIAID, then transfers a portion of the patent rights through its Office of Technology Transfer to the stakeholders: these may include public officials at the NIAID, the universities hosting the PIs' research, and the pharmaceutical companies. The universities may then share patent rights with the PIs.

Across NIAID, CDC, and the other agencies governed by HHS, 4,400 patents are owned.

Fauci's major role in this is to control $7.6 billion of NIAID funding per year that finds its way into patentable products, of which he appears to co-own eight. However, by acting as a confidante to six presidents, Fauci has brokered the flow of tens of billions more dollars than that figure suggests.

The PIs dominate the regulatory decisions.

Funding and intellectual property bind together the interests of NIAID/CDC, universities and their PIs, and pharmaceutical companies.

Typically, PIs work with a single pharmaceutical company. Thus, their first loyalty is to that company. However, the PI, university, and pharma company will all share loyalty toward the federal agency that provides them with incubated candidate drugs and vaccines and intellectual property.

These loyal PIs dominate the regulatory processes, populating committees such as the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). As such, they ensure the dominance of the pharmaceutical industry's perspective throughout the regulatory process.

The PIs, Pharma Dollars, and Gates run the press.

From among these pharma-loyalist PIs are selected the handful that serve as television personalities, where they are branded as leading experts who deliver correct information and scorn “misinformation.”

Fauci, of course, is the expert of all television experts: the one who is science himself.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry provides 75% of television advertising revenue, meaning pharma literally pays the salaries of the anchors and everyone else on set.

Gates himself has spent at least $250 million to finance journalism, journalism training, and “fact checking.” The Gates Foundation regularly hosts “strategic media partner” meetings at its headquarters in Seattle aimed at improving the media narrative around the foundation's public health activities.

(I would personally add here that the intelligence community also has their hand in “fact-checking” companies. For example, NewsGuard is owned by a pharmaceutical PR firm and advised by the inventor of the NSA's warantless wiretapping program.)

Big Tech fits into this somewhere as well. Google, for example, through its parent company Alphabet, has lucrative relationships with all major pharmaceutical companies and outright owns several smaller vaccine companies.

Follow the liability shield.

Liability shields protect and incentivize the distribution of unsafe products, but from the pharmaceutical industry's perspective they protect their profits from being eaten away by lawsuits.

Within the United States, a total liability shield for vaccines is provided by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to any vaccine added to the CDC schedule for children or pregnant women. Once on the schedule for children or pregnant women, the liability shield applies to all Americans, even adult men.

Liability protection is also given for drugs and vaccines developed during pandemics declared by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, so long as the emergency declared has no existing treatments that can be used early in the course of the disease.

These liability shields are not in any way analogous to insurance underwriting. They are meant to provide liability for products that insurance companies would never agree to underwrite. In fact, the 1986 Act was a response to the insurance markets for vaccines collapsing after a 1983 study finding that the DTP vaccine was killing one in every 300 babies that received it.

While these acts protect US pharmaceutical companies from being sued by Americans, they don't guarantee liability protections for their products distributed abroad. The Alien Tort Claims Act would allow non-Americans to sue American companies regardless of the liability protections described above. This requires more creative solutions. For example, Pfizer distributes Depo-Provera in Africa through the Gates-funded PATH, a global organization that falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of the WHO. Using an international surrogate to distribute the shots allows Pfizer to exclude the FDA's black box warning about fatal bone loss without being sued by the survivors of anyone who dies of bone loss through the Alien Tort Claims Act.

These liability shields greatly incentivize additions of vaccines to the CDC schedule, since these result in nearly universal vaccination of children yet complete protection from all liability. They also incentivize emergency use of drugs and vaccines under the PREP Act and creative dodging of liability in foreign countries.

Gates controls the World Health Organization.

Gates distributes funding to the WHO through a collection of organizations. These include the Gates Foundation, UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Fund), GAVI (originally the “Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations,” now rebranded as “Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance”),  SAGE (the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, which advises the WHO about vaccines), and Rotary International. The total annual Gates funding comes to $1 billion, about 18% of the total WHO budget. SAGE is also populated with Gates-funded experts, extending his influence on their vaccine policy even further.

The election of Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as WHO director general seemed to reflect Gates' power. He is the first person in that position with no medical degree, but was close to Gates when he served on the board of GAVI and was chair of the board of the Global Fund, both founded and funded by Gates.

By establishing control over the World Health Organization, Gates massively redirected global public health policy toward drugs and vaccines that would be profitable to the pharmaceutical industry.

GAVI redirects international aid toward locking poor countries into vaccine-related debt.

The Gates-founded and Gates-funded GAVI acts as an international bank that locks poor countries into vaccine-related debt. The WHO pressures the poor country to buy the vaccine with debt. GAVI cosigns the debt with funding provided by rich donor countries.

Thus, GAVI accelerates the Gates-induced shift away from traditional forms of aid (cheap off-patent medicines, basic medical supplies, economic development, and access to food and clean water) toward more expensive drugs and vaccines, but focuses more specifically on locking these countries into vaccine-related debt.

Outsource unethical trials and dump toxic pharmaceuticals into poor countries.

Pharmaceutical companies spend 90% of their R&D funds on phase III clinical trials, and these trials occur during the period the patent is active. As a result, anything that delays a clinical trial, such as an adverse event, eats into the length of time the patent can be used to sell high-priced products.

In the 1980s, these companies began moving clinical trials to poor countries, especially in Africa, where they could pay subjects less for participating and could lower their ethical standards and easily get away with violations.

Pharmaceuticals that are expired, defective, or too toxic to use in rich Western countries are often dumped into poor countries of Africa, Asia, and Central America. This has only accelerated as Gates' influence over the WHO has increased. WHO ties funding to poor countries based on vaccine uptake, which pressures the countries to act as release valves for the global stock of low-quality vaccines.

This is the Global Pharma Machine in one broad stroke.

To put it all together:

  • HHS agencies such as CDC and NIAID act as incubators for drugs and vaccines. Their public officials profit from royalties on the patents. Fauci governs a huge chunk of the funding that facilitates this.
  • Universities and often their PIs share in the patent royalties. The PIs dominate the regulatory approval and serve as experts in the press, with Fauci at their head.
  • Pharma funding pays the salaries of everyone on TV, and Gates training refines the media narrative in his favor.
  • Pharmaceutical companies use liability shields wherever they can to insulate themselves against lawsuits for unsafe products.
  • Gates has moved global institutions toward hooking the entire world on high-cost vaccines and drugs, often at the expense of basic necessities, and in some cases locking them into vaccine-related debt.
  • Testing drugs and vaccines in poor countries reduces the costs associated with the research, often at the expense of ethical standards and subject safety, and extends the useful life of patents. These countries then act as a release valve to absorb stocks of expired, defective, or unsafe drugs and vaccines that could not be distributed in developed countries.

Rise of the Biosecurity State

We are in the midst of the ascendance of the biosecurity state, so much of this is evolving before our eyes. However, the rollout of lockdowns, speech suppression, social distancing, forced masking, and track-and-tracing has a clear origin in two decades of “scenario planning” simulation that were first applied to infectious diseases shortly before 9/11 and dramatically accelerated in the year leading up to COVID. These simulations often involved familiar names like Fauci, Gates, Johns Hopkins, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Former CIA officer and whistleblower Kevin Schipp described these scenario planning simulations as “brainwashing exercises” in which “thousands of public health and law enforcement officials . . . participate in blowing up the US Bill of Rights.”

Two architects of this scenario planning deserve special mention: Peter Schwartz and Robert Kadlec.

Peter Schwartz

Peter Schwartz has deep connections to both the CIA and the technology world.

In 1972, Schwartz joined the Stanford Research Initiative and later rose to run it at a time when it was hosting the CIA's MKUltra project to study psychological warfare techniques that included propaganda, mind control, and torture.

Then he left to become head of Scenario Planning for the oil and gas company Shell. Scenario planning simulations were first used by the military in World War II, but entered the corporate world in the 70s and 80s. Schwartz pioneered scenario planning at Shell and then cofounded the Global Business Network in 1987 to use the process for Shell and other corporate clients. This overlapped with the period where Shell had major oil holdings in Nigeria and the Nigerian government harassed environmental activists opposed to Shell's activities and even executed one by military tribunal.

In the early 1990s, Schwartz tried recruiting Ken McCarthy, an entrepreneur who played a major role in commercializing the Internet, to a research project that involved “weakening tribal and family structures” in a West African country “on behalf of a federal government.” McCarthy found the proposal disturbing and declined involvement.

In 1993, Schwartz played a major role in the founding of Wired magazine. Its seed funding came from Nicholas Negroponte, whose brother John was later named by George W. Bush the first Director of National Intelligence, a position so powerful even the Director of the CIA directly reports to it. Wired copied the look and feel of Mondo 2000, the original tech and culture magazine of the San Francisco Bay Area. However, it shifted the attitude away from progressive idealism toward glorification of military, intelligence, and corporate achievements. Timothy Leary called it “the CIA's answer to Mondo 2000,” and many speculated it was a CIA front operation meant to infiltrate the minds and hearts of the technology community.

Indeed, Wired shot to prominence around the year 2000, when the CIA founded In-Q-Tel, an investment firm that allowed it to infiltrate tech startups. CEOs who accepted In-Q-Tel contracts became among the estimated 4.8 million Americans subject to “State Secret Contracts” who can be sent to jail for twenty years and have their property seized for so much as talking about the contract.

Schwartz seemed to be stunningly good at predicting things. In the year 2000, he was involved in a Senate study where he suggested “the horrifying possibility of terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center.”

Schwartz would later go on to serve as the author of the Rockefeller Foundation-funded 2010 “Lockstep” simulation.

Robert Kadlec

Robert Kadlec is a physician and retired colonel in the US Air Force. Kadlec became an advocate for military strategy defense against bioweapons in the 1990s. From that time onward, he was generally surrounded by and working with people from the intelligence community.

Kadlec started scenario planning for smallpox with the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1999. Tara O'Toole, who had been a director of the CIA's In-Q-Tel, was a co-founder of the Johns Hopkins Center, a senior fellow, and became its second director. Its third director was Tom Inglesby. Inglesby, O'Toole, and Johns Hopkins would be found repeatedly in scenario planning events further down the road.

Kadlec was the lead organizer of the Pentagon's 2001 Dark Winter simulation, which featured heavy CIA involvement. Many scenario planning simulations followed this over the next twenty years, and CIA involvement was a major feature of all of them.

In 2004, he drafted and convinced Congress to pass the 2004 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act, which established a $7 billion “National Stockpile” of drugs, vaccines, devices, and materials that would be needed in a bioterrorist attack. Kadlec also helped draft the Project Bioshield Act, passed the same week, which established Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which funds the development of technologies that can be added to the stockpile. Trump appointed him as Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response from August 2017 to January 2021. This put him in the lead position to manage the COVID-19 response when that time came.

At least as far back as Kadlec's 1999 smallpox simulation at Johns Hopkins, the focus was mask and vaccine mandates, lockdowns, track-and-tracing, and censorship. Kadlec's career is thus remarkable for having managed COVID-19 under Trump yet having promoted these types of responses more than twenty years earlier.

Two Decades of Scenario Planning

Kennedy outlines 16 specific scenario planning events. These include the Kadlec/Johns Hopkins simulation of 1999, TOPOFF (2000), Dark Winter (2001), Atlantic Storm (2003), TOPOFF 2 (2003), Global Mercury (2003), Atlantic Storm (2005), TOPOFF 3 (2005), SCL Simulation (2005), TOPOFF 4 (2007), Lockstep (2010), MARS (2017), SPARS (2017), Clade X (2018), Crimson Contagion (2019), and Event 201 (2019).

I strongly encourage you to read the entire last chapter of the book if you read nothing else, where these are covered in detail. Here are a few highlights:

  • The TOPOFF simulations pioneered “stay-at-home” orders in response to simulated bioweapons attacks. They started in 2000 with the Department of Justice, FBI, and FEMA. As they progressed, however, they recruited more and more state and local officials and even foreign governments. They grew to include 250 federal, state, and local agencies, businesses, and volunteer groups, and 23,000 participants. The second simulation in 2003 brought in the Canadian government, and the third in 2005 coordinated with Canada and the UK.
  • The SCL 2005 simulation was a private sector event at a UK annual military technology showcase. It featured scientists who could see the signs that a smallpox epidemic was threatening, but knew they wouldn't be able to convince the population to comply with a lockdown on that basis alone. A media company steps in to save the day with a disinformation campaign to spread a lie that a cloud of toxic chemicals has been unleashed. This then leads the population to comply.
  • In Schwartz's 2010 Rockefeller-funded “Lockstep” simulation, a novel strain of influenza leads world leaders to impose mandatory masks and temperature checks. And then this chilling paragraph: “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”
  • The MARS 2017 simulation expanded the scenario planning to a global scale. The Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank, WHO, and the Robert Koch Institute collaborated to lead ministers from the G20 (the European Union and the 19 richest nations outside the EU) through a simulation with a “mountain-associated respiratory virus” (MARS) as the culprit.
  • The SPARS 2017 simulation was convened by Gates at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Among those present were two people from the CIA's In-Q-Tel, and Matthew Shearer of Johns Hopkins who later was the one to find the first COVID cases in Seattle. SPARS was a novel coronavirus, and its simulated pandemic lasted three years, finally ending with vaccine mandates. Blacks, alternative medicine advocates, and a rapidly growing anti-vaccine movement say the vaccine hasn't been adequately tested. Media and government cooperate to silence dissent and to scorn the vaccine-hesitant. Mid-pandemic, it turns out that the virus is not as deadly as CDC had initially predicted, which further endangers the vaccine. CDC and FDA join forces to use scare tactics to induce vaccination. After a year of appearing safe, the vaccine begins to generate severe neurological side effects. However, these are rare enough to be marginalized. Gates encouraged this to be seen as “preparing for war.”
  • The Clade X 2018 simulation was hosted at Johns Hopkins and featured an otherwise harmless parainfluenza virus that was genetically engineered to be more deadly by a group advocating depopulation, and leaked from a lab on purpose. Attendees included representatives from the CIA, FDA, CDC, and media. One of them was Susan Brooks, who had introduced a bill, The Social Media Working Group Act of 2014, to establish a Social Media Bureau within the Department of Homeland Security that would facilitate censorship of social media during emergencies.
  • In May of 2018, Gates, with the WHO and World Bank, created the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, to solidify the lessons of the simulations so that the lockdowns, forced masking, stay-at-home orders, disinformation campaigns, and vaccine mandates could be easily deployed on a global scale. Fauci is one of the members. Another one of its members, Michael Ryan, stated in June of 2019 that “we are entering a new phase of high impact epidemics” that would constitute “a new normal.”
  • Crimson Contagion 2019 was held just ten weeks before the first COVID cases are now thought to have circulated in Wuhan. Participants included Fauci, Kadlec, and then-CDC director Robert Redfield. The purpose was to evangelize the state and local bureaucracies with the lessons of the scenario planning simulations. It included 100 centers, 19 federal departments and agencies, 12 states, 15 tribal nations and pueblos, 74 local health departments and coalitions, 87 hospitals, and over 100 health care organizations. A novel influenza virus from China was the culprit, and it appeared remarkably predictive of the COVID crisis right down to the number of deaths.
  • Event 201 was held two months later, in October 2019. This was three weeks after the first COVID cases are now thought to have started circulating, but before they were clearly recognized in the media. It was five months before the WHO declared a pandemic. It was organized by Gates and included a former CIA and NSA director, representatives of the World Bank, World Economic Forum, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the CDC, Chinese government,  Johnson and Johnson and other pharmaceutical companies, and corporate PR firms. The culprit was a novel coronavirus. One of the aims was to censor claims that it had leaked from a lab. Another was to censor people who blamed the pharmaceutical industry. Among the ideas circulated were tracking social media posts betraying “negative beliefs,” witholding data about infections and fatalities, and arresting dissidents for spreading “fake news.”

After reading about these, there should be nothing surprising about how quickly the world fell into “lockstep” in its response to COVID. Architects of the biosecurity state had been training leaders of government, community, media, and business to respond like this for over twenty years.

Given how uniformly the world fell into “lockstep,” the words from Schwartz's Rockefeller-funded report bearing that name are even more chilling:

Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.

Cashing in on COVID

Set against this backdrop, the Global Pharma Machine was ready in place to profit from COVID, and the biosecurity state had been preparing for twenty years to use such a crisis for its ascent. Fauci had been recruited to the service of the biosecurity state by this time, and Gates had risen to the status of a chief architect.

Vaccines and drugs followed the pattern of the Global Pharma System like clockwork:

  • HIV trials in Africa were quickly repurposed to become COVID vaccine trials.
  • Federal agencies put in money and manpower to hand off intellectual property and profits to Big Pharma.
  • Gates stepped in to make sure intellectual property didn't get pooled, so that poor countries would be charged top dollar (with some charitable freebies and discounts) for the vaccines.
  • All potential treatments were initially shunned so that the vaccines could gain liability shield status under the PREP Act.
  • The one exception was remdesivir. Fauci had given $6 million to Ralph Baric, of gain-of-function fame, to develop remdesivir as a treatment for coronaviruses in 2017. Gates has a $6.5 million stake in Gilead, the company that makes it. It costs $10 a pop to produce, and is administered for $3,000-5,000 a pop, quite the markup. Remdesivir could be used because as a late-stage injectable for severe cases, it didn't interfere with the vaccines' liability shield. Only effective early treatment would have interfered.
  • Off-patent drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were shunned to make way for newly patented drugs that would be released once the vaccine liability shield was no longer an issue.
  • The vaccine is pushed on children as quickly as possible so that the liability shield can be transferred to the 1986 Act. Once children are on the CDC schedule, the liability shield of the PREP Act is no longer needed, and early treatment drugs are fair game.
  • Merck's patent for ivermectin ran out in 1996. As a result, ivermectin costs 40 cents per dose and must be shunned. Molnupiravir, originally developed to treat horses for equine encephalitis, is based on the same mechanism of action as ivermectin and will take its place, since it costs $700 per dose.

In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion, while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion. 493 new billionaires were minted, while 8 million new people were plunged into poverty.

Gates alone grew his wealth by $23 billion.

There are many other examples of profiteers looting the COVID crisis given in this book.

The much more scary story, however, is how the biosecurity state looted the crisis.

The lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, propaganda campaigns, forced masking, social distancing, vaccine mandates, and censoring and shaming of the vaccine hesitant were quickly borrowed from the two decades of scenario planning and swiftly deployed.

But exactly who is cashing in on this power grab? To where does it lead?

The scenario planning simulations were all highly enriched with CIA associates. Peter Schwartz, with connections to MKUltra, played a significant role in their architecture. In 1960, research done under the auspices of MKUltra by Lawrence Hinkle of Cornell had identified social isolation as the most promising of all mind-control techniques. They found it had similar effects as beating someone, starving them, or depriving them of sleep.

Given the role of seeing faces in social connection, one cannot help but wonder if masking is simply an extension of social isolation.

I must repeat for the third time here, Schwartz's chilling statement from his 2010 Lockstep simulation:

Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.

While Kennedy does not cover Central Bank Digital Currencies in his book, I do believe that totalitarian behavioral economics tied to every aspect of our finances is the next step in this “firmer grip on power,” for reasons I outlined in this video.

Regardless of exactly what direction the “firmer grip on power” takes, Kennedy correctly identifies this as a “march towards a global police state” and calls on us to stop it “by calling on our moral courage.”

Some Personal Reflections

I applaud Kennedy's courage and integrity in writing this book. He is risking a lot in doing this, and to me he is a hero.

I wrote this review not as a critical analysis, but as a means of digesting for myself and presenting to you what I had learned from it. This book was a herculean task written when time is of the essence. I cannot imagine every fact in the book or that every fact I restated here is correct. No book is written without errors. I do intend, as time allows, to publish followup posts where I examine some of the claims with a critical eye, starting with those I have the most expertise in, on the biological front.

As I wrote at the outset, this review represents the world as I see it when I look through the lens of Kennedy's book.

I believe the explanatory lens of this book is of critical value and that it is absolutely necessary to spread it far and wide.

There are many things that never made sense to me before, that only Kennedy is able to make sense.

For example, the reasons for pushing the vaccine so hard on children: this makes no medical sense for a disease that primarily impacts old people and that has never killed a single child who didn't have serious preexisting health conditions. But it makes perfect sense once you realize it shifts the liability shield from the PREP Act to the 1986 Act so that the $700-a-dose ivermectin mimetic can be released.

One thing that had been puzzling me for the last year: how did the whole world suddenly embrace masks on a dime? This just became more and more puzzling as I learned that pre-COVID there were nine randomized controlled trials suggesting masks don't prevent transmission of the flu. When Fauci's emails came out and cast him as genuinely believing masks were useless at the start of the pandemic, this made me even more puzzled. How did he so quickly adopt the opposite opinion when only the weakest of evidence was emerging to support it? It was starting to seem to me that someone must have tapped him on the shoulder and said, “We're doing masks now.”

Now I have my answer: there were two decades of scenario planning simulations done by the intelligence community and biosecurity state advocates using forced masking as universal parts of pandemic response.  It was planned twenty years in advance.

In fact, this book even puts into much sharper relief the relation between the COVID response and the militaristic attack on raw milk and “private food” that occurred during the Obama administration. I knew these were connected somehow, but I had no idea how systematic the scenario planning of the rising biosecurity state had been. The fact that the scenario planning spanned the George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump years with a coherent and consistent appoach to using militaristic authoritarianism as a general response to the threat of microbes suddenly made it all make sense.

Undoubtedly, many will not make it past the title of this review because Kennedy is an “anti-vaxxer” and a “conspiracy theorist.”

While both of these have become overused words of dismissal and therefore are non-responses, I do believe “anti-vaccine” should be a legitimate phrase to use for someone opposed to vaccines on principle.

I cannot see that as Kennedy's motivation.

Rather, I see Kennedy's advocacy for vaccine safety and liability as a natural extension of his longstanding opposition to the capture of regulatory agencies by big industries. He explains it like this:

My 40-year career as an environmental and public health advocate gave me a unique understanding of the corrupting mechanisms of “regulatory capture,” the process by which the regulator becomes beholden to the industry it’s meant to regulate. I spent four decades suing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other environmental agencies to expose and remedy the corrupt sweetheart relationship that so often put regulators in bed with the polluting industries they regulated. Among the hundreds of lawsuits I filed, perhaps a quarter were against regulatory officials making illegal concessions to Big Oil, King Coal, and the chemical and agricultural polluters that had captured their loyalties. I thought I knew everything about regulatory capture and that I had armored myself with an appropriate shield of cynicism. But I was wrong about that. From the moment of my reluctant entrance into the vaccine debate in 2005, I was astonished to realize that the pervasive web of deep financial entanglements between Pharma and the government health agencies had put regulatory capture on steroids.

This strikes me as a completely honest description of his motivations.

As to conspiracy theories, Kennedy has the correct approach to them in his book. That approach is to consider them like any other theory: be open-minded, but skeptical; consider the evidence;  judge their plausibility and their likelihood of truth based on that evidence.

For example, Kennedy asks why elected African leaders died of COVID at seven times the rate that would be expected based on their demographics. “I do not endorse the theory that these men were murdered,” he writes, “nor do I dismiss such speculation out of hand.” He considers a long history of Western intelligence agencies assassinating African leaders, and the extensive research the CIA put into assassination agents that would mimic natural deaths. He leaves the question open.

Since conspiracies are real and conspiracy theories can be true or false, “conspiracy theory” cannot be used in the context of a rational discussion as a term of dismissal.

I heartily endorse Kennedy's even-handed approach to conspiracy theories.

If you enjoyed this review, I also recommend two other reviews I have written. Lily Kay's The Molecular Vision of Life covers how the Rockefeller Foundation shaped the science of molecular biology to serve its goals of eugenics, population control, and social control.  David Gumpert's Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights covers the Obama-era militaristic attack on raw milk and private food.

I wholeheartedly agree with Kennedy that we are experiencing a “march towards a global police state,” and I applaud his courage in telling this story.

“I'll see you on the barricades,” he concludes.

Damn right he'll see me there.

Will we see you?

Please Support This Service

You can support this service by sharing my work with others to spread the word, and by purchasing one of my information products. The most popular are:

The Vitamins and Minerals 101 Cliff Notes

The COVID Guide

Testing Nutritional Status: The Ultimate Cheat Sheet

Vitamins and Minerals 101: (pre-order the book and get the COVID guide for free)

There are many other ways to support this work, some at no extra cost to you, listed at chrismasterjohnphd.com/support.

Over the next several weeks, I'm going to be devoting my analytical skills to critical questions around COVID risks, vaccine safety and efficacy, and the full spectrum of vaccine alternatives, due to the imminent massive job loss occurring as a result of vaccine mandates. If you would like to support me doing this work you can also make a donation in any amount using this button:

chrismasterjohnphd.com/donate

You may also like

43 Comments

  1. Thank you so much for summarizing this book.

    Having seen an interview with RFK Jr, there is no way that I would read it. Nevertheless, there are a few snippets that seem true and correct, such as the squelching of ivermectin. That part should be just plain embarrassing to our government (and is independent of administrations or political affiliations).

  2. As a senior citizen with several significant co-morbidities, and a history of severe adverse reactions to various vaccines, I tried to get an exemption from the Government of Alberta (Canada) vaccine passport mandate. After jumping through the necessary hoops with the help of my doctor, I was finally denied the exemption and told, “Take the first jab and see what happens.”

    Uhhh.. no thanks! So, now, I’m doing my best to boost my immune system using vitamins and supplements (vitamins C and D3, zinc, quercetin) and I’m hoping for the best. Btw, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been banned here by the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Alberta Medical Association. Another quick note… Canada’s political leaders are now branding those who aren’t vaccinated for *any* reason as extremists, conspiracy theorists, and worse. Mandatory vaccination with heavy fines for non-compliance is now being at least hinted at.

    Anyway, your article is very thorough and thought provoking. At this point, I’m not quite sure what to make of it, but I’m keeping an open mind. I’m on a small fixed income so I can’t afford to buy Kennedy’s book, but I’ve watched a number of interviews of him and other “dissent” experts (Dr. Malone, etc.). Unlike most people, I try to take in a number of varying viewpoints, including yours, and then “distill” for myself what makes sense and is true.

    The Academy of Ideas has an excellent playlist on “mass psychosis” for those interested in how a whole society, even the whole world” can be “hypnotized” into giving up their freedoms and submitting to totalitarian rule: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAYxecbGotUyJwMpFHVikK4cOUkbzWPwi

    Anyway, thanks for the review and all you do! Truth WILL prevail!

    Another Chris 😉

  3. Single Mom Makes $89,844/Yr in Her Spare Time on The Computer Without Selling Anything. you can bring from $5000-$8000 of extra income every month. working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger.

    The potential with this is endless… Profitloft.ga

  4. Single Mom Makes $89,844/Yr in Her Spare Time on The Computer Without Selling Anything. you can bring from $5000-$8000 of extra income every month. working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger.

    The potential with this is endless… http://www.profitloft.ga

  5. Single Mom Makes $89,844/Yr in Her Spare Time on The Computer Without Selling Anything. you can bring from $5000-$8000 of extra income every month. working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger.

    The potential with this is endless…

  6. As a physician I understand the corporate influence that has distorted public policy in the areas of environmental toxins, drug approval for minimally useful medications, oil industry influence etc. But RFK’s book is filled with conspiracy theories that have been debunked. The tetanus vaccine campaign in Kenya is a prime example. It was not a sterilization campaign. Anti-vaxers for the most part are doing great harm. I’m sorry, Chris should stick to nutrition. I have followed the COVID pandemic, vaccine and drug treatment studies. Ivermectin is useless, as is chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis and treatment. Too much false information and conspiracy theories floating around.

    1. I have to disagree. Ivermectin and chloroquine are effective, safe and, until recently, readily available. My husband tested positive. We immediately started him on the medication regimen of ivermectin and chloroquine. 2 days later he retested. Results were negative. If it works isn’t it worth trying. What do you have to lose? Besides those meds have been around for a long time. They are proven safe, unlike the vaccine. If you want to be a Guinea pig, that’s your choice. Which is exactly how it should be, your choice.

  7. These are really evil people ! I will have to go to B&N and buy the book.

    It should be noted that Gates stole the DOS system for computers and started MicroSoft. He was sued and poor Bill lost, settling for $6 Million a the time. He was a crook from the “Get Go !” They, Fauci and Gates, make a great pair of “Partners In Crime !”

  8. If you do the following : press and hold the home button on your Android phone, and say clearly “play a song”. A special song will be served up to you!

    We sawthis on F*book yesterday and my daughter laughed hysterically. I found it hard to believe.

    I want to say I appreciate this thiughtful recap and have ordered the book. From a small local bookseller for a change.

  9. Thanks Chris for the lengthy review. RFK Jr’s hardcover has been out of stock for a while so I’ve been waiting to read it but I can’t do ebooks. Your review helps a lot in the meantime. Keep shedding light on what’s going on. The narrative is starting to crack even for the average joes who simply wanted their two shots so everyone could move on with their lives. You may also find some interested readers if you’re on substack and cross promote in the comments with Alex Berenson, Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone (yes he just made one too),

  10. Thank you for writing out all your thoughts on this book. Much appreciated.

    Wow, though, I was just firstly impressed by all your notes sticking out of the book in the picture! Haha!
    Seriously, though, do you have a good system/method for note-taking? I’ve been looking for a good one….

  11. Great summary; I’ve purchased the eBook.

    By the way, it’s “eponymous” not “titular.” “Titular” means “in title or name, only; a figurehead.”

  12. They’re not even trying to hide the fact that our public servants are actually serving the pharmaceutical companies, when you see former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb who is now a Pfizer board member talking everyday on TV about how amazing the vaccines are… Or former FDA chief who authorized Moderna’s vaccine for emergency use and now works for the biotech firm that funds Moderna’s vaccine division.

  13. I had suspected that vaccinating low risk groups like children was about profit, but I thought the profit would come from the vaccines themselves, never suspecting that the liability shift would allow them to profit from early intervention drugs as well.

  14. Thanks for the interesting review, Chris.
    Not yet done reading it, but a couple quickees:
    1. “Deepo-provera” = misspelling. It is Depo-Provera
    2. Please do not use “depopulation” in reference to birth control. They are not the same. Depopulation is willful and dramatic population reduction, which birth control does not achieve. Birth control can reduce fertility and thus population growth rate, possibly even stabilize it; it does not “depopulate”. You could say that the a- bomb depopulated Tokyo, at least temporarily. Birth control does nothing like that.
    Cheers.

    1. I fixed Depo, thank you. I’m a bit on the fence about “depopulation.” I would say that reducing the population, rather than curbing its growth, is depopulation, and that it could be trivial, small, moderate, large, or extreme. By contrast, trying to slow it would be advocating population deceleration or something like that.

      1. All depopulation involves reducing the population, but not all reduction of population is depopulation. Depopulation has a meaning; look it up.

        Merriam-Webster: “depopulate: to greatly reduce the number of people living in (a city, region, etc.).”

        GREATLY.

        If you start a family planning service and reduce fertility in your county, eventually (over a generation) causing modest population decline, you did not just “depopulate” it. That would be a gross distortion of the word,

    2. “Please do not use ‘depopulation’ in reference to birth control. They are not the same. Depopulation is willful and dramatic population reduction, which birth control does not achieve. Birth control can reduce fertility and thus population growth rate, possibly even stabilize it; it does not “depopulate”. You could say that the a- bomb depopulated Tokyo, at least temporarily. Birth control does nothing like that.”

      Sure the term can be used, especially if one considers that slowing down or halting fertility among enough people can bring the birthrate below the deathrate.

      Look at modern-day Japan. No one is outright killing them, and they are not being duped into taking contraceptives nation-wide. Yet they are “depopulating”.

      https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01042/

      Thus, if you can forcefully (or cunningly) control the birthrate, you can skew the net result towards “depopulation”.

  15. Chris, thank you. I am in Australia and am one of the people standing on the barricades. Some long standing friends have dismissed me; wished me dead and physically pulled away from me because I am not hypnotised by the propaganda. Its hard. So I applaud you and Mr Kennedy for using your platforms and enlightening/educating those of us who dare to question the insidious craziness that is crawling over every aspect of our lives just now. I have read your review and I will be buying the book. I have also bought your guide on nutrition & COVID. Thank you for all you are doing. Thank you for being brave. Stay safe.

  16. Thanks so much for dedicating time to summarise the key points of this book, Chris! I’ll be sharing this far and wide.

  17. so you’re on the anti-vax fringe. children have died from COVID. maybe those happened after book publication. your flawed analysis has moved you to the bottom of my reading list.

    1. Hi Charles,

      If you have something to say that is rational, you can say it without the word “anti-vax.” If you need to use the word “anti-vax,” you have placed yourself outside reasonable discussion by using a media buzzword meant to dismiss arguments wholesale without the need to engage them. I will dialogue with anyone who refrains from using such buzzwords.

  18. Hey Chris, this is a fantastic writeup. I’ve tried to educate my family and friends about these issues and have recommended the RFK book, the 27-hour audiobook is quite an endeavor for anyone who’s busy. This was a great synopsis. I hope others will see this as a resource for themselves and those they care about as well.

    1. The audio book is 27 hours??? I feel even more accomplished at getting this review of the hardcover out at such speed. Thank you!

  19. Have to go back and read the rest but wanted to drop this comment now.

    Re: depopulation:
    “In 2010, Gates gave a TED Talk where he suggested that “if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [the global population] by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. . .”

    His apparent suggestion that vaccines could help reduce the population raised suspicions.

    Defenders of Gates argued that his statement was poorly worded and the role of vaccines would be to reduce infant mortality and thereby convince poor families that they need not have so many children.”

    It’s not actually poorly worded. People just have to listen to the whole quote and not bring their preconceived notions to it.

    In public health it’s widely understood that reducing the death rate of children leads to women having fewer of them because they know that the ones they have will survive. Coupled with birth control, such as the pill, the result is that the population increases at a slower rate.

    That’s what Gates is saying: that population will increase at a slower rate if more children survive—not that vaccines will kill people to lower the population.

    It’s important that we get this correct, and Gates IS NOT saying what people think he is saying. Watch carefully one more time:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I&t=273

    Here is exactly what he said (@4:33):
    “First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3.”

    He is clearly talking about **population growth** because the word “that” refers to the 9 billion number—which hasn’t occurred yet. He is suggesting that the *maximum population* could be lower by 10 or 15 percent. He is *not* saying that we get rid of people who are already alive using vaccinations.

    The difference between reducing population and reducing population growth is night and day.

    Please start correcting others when they make this mistake. If we want to be taken seriously, we can’t keep propagating this incorrect interpretation of what Gates said.

    1. Andre,

      I get what you are saying, but, two things.

      First, I think it’s clear Gates wasn’t deliberately portraying that argument. The point is that he seems to be involved in sterilizing people without informed consent. So, the issue is that he may have ironically disclosed some intentions by the misinterpretation of what he said where the misinterpretation that his statement was vulnerable to was actually correct.

      Second, that’s not a clear relationship. It has been argued that family planning has led to population booms in the past:

      https://www.westonaprice.org/did-family-planning-contribute-to-the-modern-decline-in-infectious-disease-mortality/

      But I do agree that’s what Gates said. The question is whether this vulnerability to misinterpretation in his statement hinted at something more sinister he’s actually been involved with.

      Chris

    2. @Andre, did you read the book? The chapter of which that excerpt was pulled goes into further detail.

      Most concerning is the lack of informed consent in regards to African women and girls.

      I encourage others to read this book for themselves, rather than base opinions on excerpts or reviews. It’s really well-written and thoroughly cited. There’s too much content (and HISTORY) that can justifiably be summarized in a blog post or review.

  20. Hey Chris,
    I’ll see you on the barricades.
    As a mother of 2 boys I will defend them against the jab with my life.
    We are not vaxxed.
    We follow your health advice as well as people like Dave Asprey and so on.
    We used to live in Austria and drank raw milk from cows who lived their whole life outside.
    JFK jr is a HERO.

  21. I really appreciate this review and the bravery of Bobby Kennedy. Now I want to know more about his family and their politics.

  22. I never read post online that are this long and extensive, but something compelled me to keep reading! This was an excellent review and well worth the time!

  23. Great review Chris. Thank you! I’m about half way through The Real Anthony Fauci… and it isn’t a light read. But it is one everyone should read.

  24. Thank you Chris! I appreciate your review. The dynamic makes sense now. I have a new level of respect for RFK Jr. And I look forward to reading the other two reviews. Cheers! From Fran.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *