Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola<\/p>\n
In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe,1<\/span><\/sup> Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla claimed \u201ca small part of professionals\u201d intentionally circulate \u201cmisinformation … so that they will mislead those that have concerns.\u201d2<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n Such medical professionals, Bourla said, are not just bad people, \u201cthey\u2019re criminals, because they have literally cost millions of lives.\u201d Bourla is one to talk, being the CEO of a company the name of which is synonymous with corporate crime.<\/p>\n Bourla\u2019s comments were made on the same day Pfizer and its partner BioNTech asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to broaden its authorization for booster shots to everyone over the age of 18.3<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n I guess we can\u2019t be too surprised, though, as the primary defense strategy people like Bourla have is to blame the opposition for their own misdeeds. He even claims the company is being targeted by \u201cdark organizations,\u201d meaning organizations that aren\u2019t transparent about their funding.<\/p>\n This is precisely what the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is, the fabrications4<\/span><\/sup> of which are being used to prop up the official narrative that those who present evidence showing the COVID shots are dangerous are domestic terrorists5<\/span><\/sup> out to worsen the pandemic death toll.<\/p>\n No one knows who funds this group, but it has plenty of connections to war hawks and Great Reset promoters \u2014 including the Atlantic Council, to which Bourla is making these statements.<\/p>\n By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the European Council of Foreign Relations, Save the Children Fund (funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates\u2019 GAVI Vaccine Alliance), the British Parliament, CIA and Event 201,6<\/span>,<\/sup>7<\/span><\/sup> Microsoft,8<\/span><\/sup> and the Center for American Progress9<\/span><\/sup> (another organization funded by dark money10<\/span><\/sup>).<\/p>\n And Bourla wants us to believe Pfizer is under attack from dark money groups? Again, the playbook of these wolves includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty of.<\/p>\n In August 2018, Facebook claimed an \u201cinfluence campaign\u201d by Russian \u201cbad actors\u201d had been carried out on its platform leading up to the 2018 midterm elections. However, it turned out these pages weren\u2019t identified by Facebook. They came primarily from the Atlantic Council\u2019s Digital Forensic Research Lab.<\/p>\n In her article, \u201cHysteria Over Newly Revealed Facebook \u2018Influence Campaign\u2019 Doesn\u2019t Fit the Facts,\u201d11<\/span><\/sup>investigative reporter Whitney Webb took a deep-dive into this inane propaganda effort, pointing out that:<\/p>\n \u201c… despite the lawmakers\u2019 claims, Facebook has established no links to the Russian government or even Russian nationals.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The only \u2018evidence\u2019 to back up the claim of Russian-involvement is that one of the pages identified \u2018had an IRA [Internet Research Agency, a Russian \u2018troll farm\u2019 named in a Mueller-probe indictment] account as one of its admins for \u2018only seven minutes\u2019 and \u2018one of the IRA accounts we disabled in 2017 shared a Facebook Event hosted by\u2019 one of the pages.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Beyond the fact that accusations of Russian involvement are highly politicized given the lack of current evidence, there is hardly any indication that this \u2018influence campaign\u2019 was even influential at all. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Indeed, most of the \u2018bad actor\u2019 pages and accounts had hardly any followers, with most of them having no followers. For instance, only four of the 32 total social-media pages and accounts had more than 10 followers, with all other pages \u2014 i.e., the remaining 28 \u2014 having between 10 and zero, according to Facebook\u2019s statements.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n All of the Instagram accounts identified had zero followers and, among those seven accounts, only one of them had made a single post on the platform. By Facebook\u2019s own admission, only four of the pages named were even remotely significant in terms of followers and thus \u2018influence.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why do I mention this? Because this is the same tactic used to frame a small number of individuals with limited social media reach as domestic terrorists, simply for sharing counter-narratives about the COVID pandemic.<\/p>\n According to the CCDH,12<\/span><\/sup> a dozen individuals, including me, were responsible for 65% of all anti-vaccine content on social media and should therefore be banned from all platforms. Most social media companies have since complied, deplatforming most of us. This despite a public denouncement of the CCDH\u2019s accusations by Monika Bickert, vice president of Facebook content policy, who stated that:13<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n \u201c\u2026 these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they\u2019ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The report14<\/span><\/sup> upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as \u2018anti-vax\u2019 or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a \u2018representative sample\u2019 of the content shared across our apps.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Getting back to the Atlantic Council, Webb noted that:15<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n \u201cFacebook officially partnered with the Atlantic Council this past May in order to tackle so-called \u2018fake news,\u2019 adding that the hawkish think-tank would serve as its \u2018eyes and ears\u2019 in identifying alleged foreign-influence operations …<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Atlantic Council itself is led by a mix of retired military officers, former politicians, and Western business elites. And the think-tank\u2019s financial sponsors include top U.S. defense contractors; agencies aligned with Washington and the Pentagon; the United Arab Emirates; major transnational corporations; and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One can think of several reasons why such a group would be interested in fomenting anti-Russian hysteria … The Atlantic Council\u2019s conflicts of interest are certainly worth keeping in mind …\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The same must be said about the CCDH, and Pfizer too. Both are glaringly biased and in no position to judge what is misinformation and what isn\u2019t. But then, this is war, after all. We\u2019re in an information war, and the term \u201cmisinformation\u201d is lobbed in lieu of grenades. Discernment and some basic wisdom is required to avoid becoming a victim.<\/p>\n Fact checking organizations are another weapon designed and deployed to control the narrative. They exist as gatekeepers to funnel readers and viewers to the official narrative and away from anything that might raise inconvenient questions. The largest and most influential fact checker is NewsGuard, which hands out \u201ctrustworthiness\u201d ratings to websites.<\/p>\n NewsGuard cofounder Louis Crovitz is a member of the Council on Foreign relations \u2014 another Great Reset supporter \u2014 and primary advisers include Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security, and Ret. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former director of both the CIA and NSA.16<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n Knowing that, it makes it easier to understand how everyday people who share information that veers from the official narrative can be labeled and treated as a national security threat.<\/p>\n The COVID pandemic is a militarized operation. We\u2019re at war, and the designated enemy (looking at it from the side that started this war without telling anyone) are the citizens of the world who want to hold on to their freedom and human rights.<\/p>\nPot Calling the Kettle Black<\/h2>\n
More on the Atlantic Council<\/h2>\n
False Allegations Used to Quench Freedom of Speech<\/h2>\n
Information Warfare<\/h2>\n
Pfizer Has a Long History of Criminal Behavior<\/h2>\n