The program is being described as a “national effort” by the Department of Health and Human Services.
In response to a Freedom of Material Act (FOIA) request, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided information to The Blaze.
According to the material, the federal government spent $1 billion on advertising as part of a media push to boost public confidence in the Covid-19 vaccination.
The program is being described as a “national effort” by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The US government paid the mainstream media $1 billion in tax dollars to falsely push Covid-19 vaccines.
In response to a Freedom of Material Act (FOIA) request, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided information to The Blaze. According to the material, the federal government spent $1 billion on advertising as part of a media push to boost public confidence in the Covid-19 vaccination.
The campaign is being branded as a “national push to improve public trust in, and uptake of, COVID-19 vaccines while promoting basic preventative strategies such as mask-wearing and social distance,” according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Although the data does not support these claims, the media effort was most likely concealing something more nefarious.
Anyone who has spent time reading the news or watching news coverage on television can attest to this.
Virtually every one of the news organizations paid by HHS, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the New York Post, covered stories about the vaccines and did not disclose they had accepted taxpayer dollars to support the vaccine effort.
Because it is normal practice for editorial teams to work independently from advertising departments, it appears that the organizations did not see the need to reveal their funding.
The ads included a humorous social media campaign starring Elton John and Michael Caine, fear-based ads presenting survivor stories, and clear factual ads supporting the safety and efficacy of the current COVID-19 mRNA injectable.
“Advertisers pay for space to share their messages, as was the case here, and those ads are clearly labeled as such. The newsroom is completely independent from the advertising department.”
A funny social media campaign starring Elton John and Michael Caine, fear-based commercials including survivor stories, and straightforward factual ads confirming the safety and efficacy of the current COVID-19 mRNA injection were among the advertisements.
Shani George, vice president of communications at the Washington Post, commented on the federal government’s funding of media advertising, saying:
In an October BuzzFeed post, health agency specialists such as CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and epidemiologist Dr. George Rutherford provided “important facts” about vaccine eligibility and skewed, pro-vaccine views.
In the Los Angeles Times, “experts” offered advice on how to persuade vaccine-skeptical friends and relatives to change their beliefs.
“The pro-vaccine messaging people want to hear,” according to a Washington Post report.
The headline of a November Newsmax post read, “Newsmax Opposes Vaccine Mandate, Here’s Why.” The essay, clearly an opinion piece, began by calling the requirement a “dangerous overreach,” but went on to promote the vaccine campaign with phrases like “The vaccine…has been proved to be safe,” and “The vaccine…has been demonstrated to be effective.”
The U.S. government is not the only entity to recognize the power behind controlling the news media. Bill Gates is another. Using more than 30,000 grants, Gates has contributed at least $319 million to the media, which senior staff writer for MintPress News Alan McLeod revealed.
Recipients included CNN, NPR, BBC, The Atlantic and PBS. Gates has also sponsored foreign organizations that included The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, and Al Jazeera. More than $38 million has also been funneled into investigative journalism centers.
Gates’ influence within the press is far-reaching, from journalism to journalistic training. This ultimately makes true objective reporting about Gates or his initiatives virtually impossible. MacLeod writes:
“Today, it is possible for an individual to train as a reporter thanks to a Gates Foundation grant, find work at a Gates-funded outlet, and to belong to a press association funded by Gates. This is especially true of journalists working in the fields of health, education and global development, the ones Gates himself is most active in and where scrutiny of the billionaire’s actions and motives are most necessary.”
It’s worth noting that Bill Gates is passionate about health, particularly immunizations. And with this power to control the media and his strong connections with health organizations such as Johns Hopkins, with whom he collaborated for Event 201, it’s not hard to imagine that his influence can be seen in many of the stories you read or watch each day.
The United States is hardly the only country where the government has overreached into the Fourth Estate. According to leaked papers, the BBC News and Reuters were also part of a covert operation in which the United Kingdom attempted to infiltrate Russian media and promote a British narrative through a network of Russian journalists.
To achieve these goals, which comprised 15,000 journalists and employees, multimillion-dollar contracts were used. The operation closely resembles Operation Mockingbird, a clandestine CIA media infiltration campaign that began in 1948 in the United States. Bribes to hundreds of American journalists, who then published bogus stories at the CIA’s behest, accounted for almost one-third of the CIA budget, or $1 billion each year.
While it may appear to be ancient history, there is evidence that it is still going on today. Although the messages have evolved over time, the primary method of delivery has remained consistent. Other publications have emphasized the importance of intelligence agencies in the global campaign to eradicate “anti-vaccine misinformation” from public discourse, as well as the fact that they are doing it with modern cyberwarfare technologies.
It’s tough to change all-cause mortality and death rates. Either they are dead or they aren’t. An individual is included in the National Death Index Database for only one reason: they died, regardless of the cause. Evidence is emerging that all-cause death is approaching levels reported during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
The death rate in working-age Americans aged 18 to 64 years in the third quarter of 2021 was 40% higher than pre-pandemic levels, according to OneAmerica, a mutual insurance holding company. Other insurance companies are reporting similar findings, citing greater death rates as a reason.
The Hartford Insurance Company announced mortality had increased 32% from 2019 and 20% from 2020 during 2021. Lincoln National also reported claims increased by 13.7% year-over-year and were 54% higher in the fourth quarter compared to 2019. Funeral homes are posting an increase in burials and cremations in 2021 over the year 2020
Other nations are reporting an increase in overall mortality as a result of the global introduction of the COVID vaccine. The number of deaths recorded by a prominent German health insurance firm was roughly 14 times higher than the number of deaths reported by the German government. The data was collected directly from doctors who were applying for reimbursement from a sample of 10.9 million people by the health insurance firm.
While the world’s attention has been drawn to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a reporter for The Exposé28 observes that the UK government has remained silent.
Each week the U.K. Health Security Agency publishes a surveillance report. The February 24, 2022, report shows 85% to 91% of adults who are infected, hospitalized or died from COVID-19 were fully vaccinated.
According to Pfizer documents, vaccines aren’t fully safe.
Four days after the FDA approved the Pfizer immunization for ages 16 and up, a group of public health professionals, doctors, scientists, and journalists filed a FOIA request, asking the data Pfizer used for the approval of Comirnaty.
The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency is a non-profit organization that brings together professionals in the fields of public health and medicine (PHMPT).
Despite the FDA’s claim to be committed to transparency, it took 55 years3 after the FOIA was filed for the data supporting Comirnaty’s clearance to be revealed, and another 20 years to completely comply. Overall, the FDA’s power has shrunk.
When the FDA refused to share the data, the PHMPT sued, claiming that it was the FDA’s legal obligation to do so.
Vaccines aren’t completely safe, according to Pfizer records.
A group of public health professionals, doctors, scientists, and journalists submitted a FOIA request four days after the FDA authorized Pfizer’s vaccination for ages 16 and up, requesting the data Pfizer used for the approval of Comirnaty. The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMT) is a non-profit organization that brings together public health and medical professionals (PHMPT).
Even though the FDA claimed that the organization was committed to transparency, the agency first wanted 55 years33 to release the data that supported the approval of Comirnaty after the FOIA was filed, and then asked for around another 20 years to fully comply. In short, the FDA wanted 75 years to release documentation that supported their approval of a genetic therapy being promoted for mass vaccination-which would surface long after the majority of the populace who were subjected to the experiment would have likely been dead.
When the FDA declined to release the information, the PHMPT filed a lawsuit, saying that it was infringing on the law.
The first of these documents was released on March 1, 2022, and is available for public viewing on the PMHPT website. What’s in these records could help explain why the government thought $1 billion was needed to enhance vaccine confidence.
One Trial Site News reporter’s initial inspection of several of the materials discovered numerous inaccuracies and irregularities. During an interview, he said:
“So, all this information comes piped through pharmacovigilance, what’s called the pharmacovigilance shop at Pfizer and BioNTech. I presume Pfizer. And then that’s been summarized and submitted to the FDA as a series of documents. So this is a window into what FDA actually knows, which is by inference what CDC knows.”
“When they tell us there’s no risks and we should go ahead and start mandating or forcing vaccination on our children, what we have for instance, in that section you’re referring to of the listed adverse events is a huge list of what is considered to be adverse events of interest, which means that they’re not just one-offs.”
“It happens multiple times throughout the world and what we’re finding is embedded throughout this huge volume of documents that the judge has forced Pfizer and the FDA … remember our government tried really hard to keep this information from us and fortunately the courts have called their bluff and forced them to disclose it. Now it’s up to us to comb through it.”
“When Bannon asked why it was so critical that the courts mandated the material be given now, Malone went on to outline the trouble that will likely occur for Pfizer and the FDA in the following weeks and months as a result of the information that is now publicly available to the public.”
“The courts have forced Pfizer and the FDA to comply with the law which is that after licensure is granted these documents must be made available. Previously they’re considered confidential.
“And remember that as Naomi’s [Naomi Wolfe] is about to discuss, and the truckers are so upset about, we have been forced to take these vaccines and we have been told that they’re fully safe and effective. What this document says is the government has been well aware that they are not fully safe and has hidden this information from us.”
“What that really matters for Pfizer is that the indemnification clauses require Pfizer disclose known adverse events and this documentation demonstrates they didn’t do so. A lot of the lawyers are licking their chops over this because it seems to indicate a break in the veil that may allow legal action basically due to fraud and concealment of these risks from the general public.”
“This is why you have not been able to have full informed consent, is they’ve hidden all this information from you and they’ve used all the propaganda and censorship tools — which you’re about to cover — and paid media, to keep all this information from you and spin it, so that you think the left is right and the down is the up.”