Dalton Gardens Hearing Set For June 30 re: Protective WTF Ordinance

By Bill Buley June 27, 2022 | Original Coeur d’Alene Press article here.

Regular Meeting of Dalton Gardens, ID City Council

  • Wednesday, June 30, 2022 @ 6:00 PM
  • Agenda Packet here
  • Location: DALTON GARDENS CITY HALL, 6360 N 4 th St., Dalton Gardens, ID
  • Meeting will be conducted via teleconference and in person.
  • Please use this link to join the webinar via computer/smartphone:
  • Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833 or 1-346-248-7799 or 1-253-215-8782
  • Webinar ID: 867 8617 6108; Passcode: 336435
June 30, 2022 Agenda

DALTON GARDENS, ID — The Dalton Gardens City Council will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Thursday on an ordinance to regulate installation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — that most think of as cell towers — within city limits.

Councilman Tyler Drechsel said the “Telecom Ordinance” has been two years in the making.

“This ordinance will protect the rural feel and lifestyle that the citizens of Dalton Gardens love and help to provide safeguards for all the residents,” he said. “This has been a long process and we are all excited for this ordinance to finally come to fruition.”

According to a draft of the ordinance, its purpose is to “promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Dalton Gardens; to protect property rights; and to protect the important environmental features and scenic, historical, natural and man-made character and appearance of the City.”

It goes on to say that the city is seeking to minimize adverse impacts caused by the siting, placement, physical size and/or unnecessary proliferation of personal wireless service facilities.”

The proposed law says the installation, construction, erection, relocation, substantial expansion or material alteration of any personal wireless service facility within the City will require a special use permit.

The ordinance says that each installation at each proposed location will be reviewed and considered independently for its own characteristics and potential impacts, “irrespective of whether the proposed facility is designed and intended to operate independently or whether the installation is designed and/or intended to operate jointly as part of a distributed antenna system.”

The public is welcome to attend the meeting and offer comment.

Pittsfield, MA Caves to Political Pressure re: Verizon Cell Tower That is Significantly Harming Residents

Adapted from a Children’s Health Defense article here.

The Pittsfield Board of Health last week voted behind closed doors to rescind its cease-and-desist order against the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) located near 877 South Street.

The vote is an unfortunate step in a months-long standoff between Pittsfield residents, who identified the tower as the source of multiple illnesses, and Verizon affiliate Pittsfield Cellular Telephone, which last month sued the city and board of health in a bid to overturn the cease-and-desist order.

Attorney W. Scott McCollough represented four of the affected families and was prepared to defend their interests and the board of health’s cease-and-desist order against Verizon in federal court.

McCollough and Massachusetts environmental attorney Paul Revere III were prepared to defend against a claim of “express preemption” by Verizon, he said. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents local zoning authorities from regulating the placement or construction of cell towers based on environmental effects of RF microwave radiation pollution from Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs).

US Code Title 47§332(c)(7)(B)(iv):

“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

McCollough said that the Pittsfield Board of Health is not a zoning authority and it was not regulating placement or construction. Instead, “It found injury and causation and then exercised its state health and sanitation authority to require removal of the offending facility,” he said.

A telecommunications attorney with decades of trial experience, McCollough said he knows how telecom operates. According to McCollough, the withdrawal of the cease-and-desist order does not diminish their

“considerable findings against Verizon Wireless for causation of a host of documented medical problems beginning with the activation of the tower. People are being harmed, and it is the responsibility of the board of health to represent their interests. Some of these corporations act with impunity when they perceive a threat to a case that could adversely affect their bottom line. It is hard for a smaller town to withstand the political and other resources Verizon wields. I had hoped Pittsfield was an exception. They caved. I deal with their kind every day. They view my clients as collateral damage, and I am personally and professionally offended by that. This is not over.”

The board’s move to rescind the order, though not entirely unexpected, came as a blow to 17 residents who said the Verizon tower that was activated in the midst of their neighborhood in March 2020 caused them to become sick.

Lawyers representing six of the city’s affected residents filed an intervention on May 25 to defend the board’s order — the first such cease-and-desist order against a major wireless carrier ever issued in the U.S.

Pittsfield Board of Health Chair Bobbie Orsi said during last week’s meeting the board wanted to help the residents, but that litigation was not the process that was going to help them resolve the “issues” at the present time. Orsi, however, did not elaborate on what the board thought would help resolve the illnesses — some of them classified as significant diseases — experienced by neighbors who live as close as 300 feet from the cell tower.

Once the tower was activated residents reported difficulties sleeping through the night if they could get to sleep at all. They said they were plagued with headaches, vertigo, nausea, brain fog and skin rashes. Within the next 18 months came two diagnoses of cancer and one recurrence of cancer in the town Family pets died, and even the moles did not return to family gardens as the ground started to thaw, some residents said.

Californians – Voice Your Opposition to CA SB.866 Today!

Original post from Children’s Health Defense here.

state of California image overlaid on image of youth on cell phones with one in foreground receiving an injection

California’s SB.866 was scheduled for a vote on Monday, June 6.

  • The good news: the bill was not brought to the Assembly floor for a vote.
  • The bad news: as early as Thursday, June 9, the Assembly could bring the bill to a vote on the floor.

The California state government should not strip away parents’ rights to make important health decisions for their children and potentially place minors in danger.

If SB.866 passes, it will permit minors 12 years of age or older to consent to any vaccine approved by the FDA and recommended by the CDC without parental knowledge or consent. A similar bill in Washington, D.C., was struck down by a federal judge. The California bill is already being targeted for litigation if it passes. Make sure that the assembly members know this fact.

Reports from Sacramento suggest legislators may be feeling pressure from actions taken by constituents concerned about government overreach. The Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK) action alert generated 420,000 emails in less than 48 hours.

We must continue to flood assembly members’ inboxes and voicemails and tell them what we think. Now is the time to take action and let your voices be heard!

A. Send Email, Edit From This Sample; Go here to do so.

Email Text:

SB.866 is an extreme, anti-parent, anti-family bill that allows minors 12 years and older to consent to all vaccinations, including the new Emergency Use Authorized COVID vaccines, without parental consent. Children are not capable of making sound risk/benefit decisions without being influenced by peer pressure and coercion.

This bill allows for vaccination at home, without parental consent, and opens a pandora’s box on privacy issues, medical history oversight, and the potential for medical errors. It is not about expanding the health rights that minors already have. Instead, it leaves millions of children vulnerable to unnecessary risk, coercion, and harm by removing vital and protective parental consent.

Yet, parents know their children’s medical history, allergies, and health information best. A minor can’t even comprehend the complex nature of their medical history.

The COVID vaccine is still an experimental, investigational, and unlicensed product that should not be forced on children, who are underage, to make important health care decisions.

A similar bill in Washington, D.C., The DC Minor Consent for Vaccination,” was struck down by a federal judge. The CA bill is already being targeted for litigation if SB.866 passes.

As adults, we need to protect the children of California by keeping crucial parental rights in place.

B. Call These 28 Key Members of the State Assembly Today

. . . to express your opposition to SB.866, the bill that would allow minors as young as 12 years old to consent to vaccination without parental consent or knowledge.

  1. Joaquin Arambula of Fresno County 916-319-2031 and 559-445-5532
  2. Tasha Boerner-Horvath of north San Diego County 916-319-2076 and 760-434-7605
  3. Ken Cooley of Sacramento County 916-319-2008 and 916-464-1910
  4. Jim Cooper of Sacramento County 916-319-2009 and 916-670-7888
  5. Tom Daly of central Orange County 916-319-2069 and 714-939-8469
  6. Mike Fong of Monterey Park to Arcadia in L.A. County 916-319-2049 and 323-264-4949 — Monterey Park 91754
  7. Eduardo Garcia of Imperial and Riverside counties 916-319-2056 and 760-347-2360 — Coachella, CA 92236
  8. Mike Gipson of South-Central Los Angeles 916-319-2064 and 310-324-6408 — Gardena, CA 90248
  9. Adam Gray is running for the new Central Valley congressional seat that includes West Modesto, Ceres, Patterson and Newman among other central and eastern Stanislaus County communities 916-319-2021 and 209-726-5465 — Modesto, CA 95354
  10. Timothy Grayson of northeast Contra Costa County 916-319-2014 and 925-521-1511 — Vallejo, CA 94590
  11. Jacqui Irwin of southwest Ventura County 916-319-2044 and 805-482-1904 — Oxnard, CA 93030
  12. Brian Maienschein of north San Diego 916-319-2077 and 858-675-0077 — San Diego, CA 92128
  13. Chad Mayes (independent) of Palm Springs/Yucca Valley/Yucaipa 916-319-2042 and 760-346-6342 — Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
  14. Adrin Nazarian of Van Nuys 916-319-2046 and 818-376-4246 — Van Nuys, CA 91401
  15. Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach 916-319-2070 and 562-429-0470 — Long Beach, CA 90815
  16. Cottie Petrie-Norris of coastal Orange County 916-319-2074 and 949-251-0074 — Irvine, CA 92612
  17. Sharon Quirk-Silva of Fullerton/Buena Park/Anaheim 916-319-2065 and 714-525-6515 — Fullerton, CA 92835
  18. James Ramos of Redlands/Loma Linda/Highland/north San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga 916-319-2040 and 909-476-5023 — Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
  19. Eloise Reyes of San Bernardino/Rialto/Fontana 916-319-2047 and 909-381-3238 — San Bernardino, CA 92401
  20. Luz Rivas of northeast San Fernando Valley — 916-319-2039 and 818-504-3911 — Arleta, CA 91331
  21. Robert Rivas of Monterey, San Benito, and San Cruz counties and Gilroy 916-319-2030 and 831-759-8676 — Morgan Hill, CA 95037
  22. Freddie Rodriguez of Ontario/Chino/Pomona — 916-319-2052 and 909-902-9606 — Chino, CA 91710
  23. Blanca Rubio of Azusa/Glendora/Covina and other east L.A. County communities 916-319-2048 and 626-960-4457 — West Covina, CA 91791
  24. Miguel Santiago of downtown Los Angeles — 916-319-2053 and 213-620-4646 — Los Angeles, CA 90013
  25. Rudy Salas is running for a new congressional seat covering parts of Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare counties — 916-319-2032 and 661-335-0302 — Bakersfield, CA 93301
  26. Carlos Villapudua of Stockton and Tracy 916-319-2013 and 209-948-7479 — Stockton, CA 95202
  27. Lori Wilson of Fairfield/Vacaville/Rio Vista/Antioch/Brentwood 916-319-2011 — Fairfield, CA 94533

Appendix A: SB.866 Text

From https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB866

Amended in Senate March 09, 2022


Senate Bill No. 866

**Introduced by Senators Wiener and Pan (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Wicks) (Coauthor: Senator Newman) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Aguiar-Curry, Friedman, Low, Ting, and Akilah Weber) ** | January 20, 2022

An act to add Section 6931 to the Family Code, relating to minors.


SB 866, as amended, Wiener. Minors: vaccine consent.

Existing law prescribes various circumstances under which a minor may consent to their medical care and treatment without the consent of a parent or guardian. These circumstances include, among others, authorizing a minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease or condition is one that is required by law or regulation to be reported to the local health officer, or is a related sexually transmitted disease, as may be determined by the State Public Health Officer. This bill would additionally authorize a minor 12 years of age or older to consent to vaccines that meet specified federal agency criteria. The bill would authorize a vaccine provider, as defined, to administer a vaccine pursuant to the bill, but would not authorize the vaccine provider to provide any service that is otherwise outside the vaccine provider’s scope of practice.

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


Section 6931 is added to the Family Code, to read:


(a) A minor 12 years of age or older may consent to a vaccine that is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and meets the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ACIP) without the consent of the parent or guardian of the minor.

(b) An authorized vaccine provider may administer a vaccine pursuant to subdivision (a). For purposes of this section, “authorized vaccine provider” means a person licensed pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code or a clinic or health facility licensed pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 1200 of the Health and Safety Code), or any other provider authorized by the state.

(c) This section does not authorize a vaccine provider to provide any a service that is otherwise outside the vaccine provider’s scope of practice.

Tell the FDA to Get Their #HandsOffOurChildren

Wire America: It’s the Wild, Wild West at the FDA re: the so-called “Vaccine” Bingo Game . . .

Dr. Arnold Monto, FDA here:

“We all agree this is tricky.”

View 30 minutes from 6 hrs, 50 mins to 7 hrs, 20 mins in the “Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee – June 7, 2022 video to watch the vote: Out of 22 voters . . . 21 Yes, 0 No, 1 Abstain vote to recommend approval of the two-dose Novavax Covid-19 jab for adults 18 years and older.”

From Align act page here.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is declaring war on our children and it’s on each of us to be unrelenting as we defend the next generation from Big Pharma and its allies.

We must stop the FDA’s attack, beginning with a campaign to end unethical and unsubstantiated Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) that will subject younger and our most vulnerable children to the unnecessary risks of COVID shots.Tell the FDA to get their #HandsOffOurChildren and let regulatory authorities know that #ParentsAreWatching.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) is scheduled to meet on four separate occasions in June to discuss additional EUAs that would provide cradle-to-grave COVID shots and consider a “Future Framework” that will permanently lower the bar for safety and efficacy going forward.

Their itinerary is as follows:

  • June 7 — Emergency Use Authorization for Novavax’s COVID shot for adults.
  • June 14 — Amendment to Moderna’s EUA to include primary series for children and adolescents 6 years through 17 years of age.
  • June 15 — Amendment to Moderna’s EUA to include primary series for children 6 months to 5 years and amendment to Pfizer’s EUA to include the primary series to children 6 months through 4 years of age.
  • June 28 — Proposed “Future Framework” for COVID shots.

Dr. Toby Rogers aptly calls the June meetings a “blitzkrieg” because it is an overwhelming all-out attack (on informed consent) designed to create psychological shock and demoralizing chaos. But we can change the outcome by arming up with real data and creating a blitzkrieg of our own.We need Defenders like YOU to hold the line and stop the approval of EUA amendments that profoundly impact the health and safety of our kids.

Tell VRBPAC members:

  1. THERE IS NO COVID EMERGENCY FOR CHILDREN: Children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death. They have a 99.995% recovery rate and the vast majority of children have minimal symptoms. A study published in Nature described how children between 3 and 11 years of age mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses to COVID. The CDC’s own data show that at least 75.2% of children ages 0 to 11 years and 74.2% of adolescents ages 12 to 17 years already have superior natural immunity.
  2. mRNA SHOTS OFFER LITTLE IN THE WAY OF PROTECTION: There is no clinically significant health benefit from the mRNA vaccines. Moderna’s own press release acknowledges that “the absence of any severe disease, hospitalization or death in the study precludes the assessment of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints.” Preliminary data showed the shots were only about 44% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in children 6 months to 2 years old, and 37% effective in children ages 2 to 5 — both below the 50% level that regulators had generally called the minimum level for EUA approval in 2020. In New York, officials observed that Pfizer’s efficacy against Omicron plummeted from 68% to 12% after 7 weeks in children ages 5 to 11.
  3. INJURIES FROM COVID SHOTS IN CHILDREN ARE CATASTROPHIC: Vaccinated children face a substantial risk of myocarditis. Moderna’s EUA application, originally filed in June 2021, has already been held up because of a clear safety signal for myocarditis, which has prompted a number of European countries to prohibit its use in young people. Additionally, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has over 48,500 reports of adverse events in children, including 112 deaths (as of May 20, 2022) and a growing number of reports of encephalopathies, clotting issues, diabetes and neurological issues in children following COVID shots.

The FDA is poised to make decisions regarding our children and the future of this country that may have a devastating impact on children’s health.

Please use go to this page and click the button at the top of the page to send a message to FDA and CDC officials, VRBPAC members and elected representatives demanding that they reject the Pfizer and Moderna EUAs for children and ensure our government agencies are following the science.

Verizon Drops Lawsuit vs. City of Pittsfield Board of Health

By Meg Britton-Mehlisch, June 7, 2022 | Original The Berkshire Eagle article here.

PITTSFIELD, MA — Verizon Wireless has dropped the federal lawsuit it had filed against the Pittsfield Board of Health in the dispute over the company’s cell tower at 877 South St.

The telecommunications company said in a motion to dismiss filed Thu June 2 that the case was moot since the Pittsfield Board of Health voted a day earlier to rescind a cease-and-desist order over the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) at 877 South St.. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni accepted Verizon’s motion on Friday, dismissing the request of several neighbors to be added as intervenors to the case in the process.

On June 1, the Board of Health voted 4-0 — with new board member Dr. Jeffrey Leppo abstaining — to withdraw the order. Members said they no longer felt that the order, which they said was intended to bring Verizon to a discussion, would serve the best interests of the residents they were trying to protect.

Chair Bobbie Orsi said.

“When we issued the cease-and-desist order, we did that as a strategy to have a conversation with Verizon. I felt in my heart that we really wanted them to come talk to us about this.We wanted something that was going to be helpful for the residents in that neighborhood. I guess my feeling now is that litigation is perhaps not the process, that’s going to get us to — that’s not going to help resolve the issues right now.”

The board voted unanimously to issue an emergency order against the company and tower in April after more than a year of investigating reports from residents living in the area around the tower that they’d been experiencing health problems such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, insomnia, skin rashes, palpitations and tinnitus since the tower began operating in August 2020.

At the time, Orsi and other members said they felt it was their “duty” to respond to these health issues and ask Verizon to meet and discuss moving or shutting off the tower. Board members said they’d taken a polite approach at first, hoping to appeal to the company’s desires to be a good neighbor to no avail.

Wire America: For those who were not aware the extension of the FCC’s RF microwave radiation standards was ruled “arbitrary and capricious” in the DC Court of Appeals on August 13, 2021.

Link to Transcript of Press Conference Following EHT Federal Court Victory Over FCC Wireless Radiation Safety Limits – Environmental Health Trust]

“The August 13, 2021 landmark ruling in the case Environmental Health Trust et al. v. the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the FCC’s 2019 decision to not update it’s 1996 RF microwave radiation exposure limits failed to address impacts of long term wireless exposure, failed to address unique impacts to children, failed to address the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation, failed to address impacts to wildlife and the environment, and failed to address impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.”

The DC Circuit judges ruled the following in Case 20-1025:

“. . . we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio-frequency [microwave] radiation. It must, in particular,

  • (i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines,
  • (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and
  • (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”

Wireless radio frequency microwave radiation is bioactive and is currently being insufficiently regulated. Therefore, each state or locality can regulate the maximum power output of microwave radiation from wireless infrastructure antennas that reaches any areas that are accessible to human beings and other living organisms, consistent with the 11,000+ pages of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense and others plaintiffs placed in the FCC’s public record: Vol-1, Vol-2, Vol-3, Vol-4, Vol-5, Vol-6, Vol-7 Vol-8, Vol-9, Vol-10, Vol-11, Vol-12, Vol-13, Vol-14, Vol-15, Vol-16, Vol-17, Vol-18, Vol-19, Vol-20, Vol-21, Vol-22, Vol-23, Vol-24, Vol-25, Vol-26 and Vol-27.

This page is one of three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs); the other two are the US House/Senate Conference Report for the 1996 Telecommunications Act (“1996-Act”) and the stated purpose of the 1996-Act: to promote the safety of life and property.

In April, the board changed tactics, issuing an emergency order that gave Verizon seven days to meet or receive a cease-and desist order as part of the board’s “statutory and historical police power to protect its citizens from injury and harm. In the order, the board found that the cell tower “is a public nuisance” and “a cause of sickness” that “directly causes harm to certain individuals, and renders dwellings unfit for human habitation.”

Verizon responded in May by filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court and asked the court to decide whether the order violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 — a law that established how telecommunication companies could be regulated and compete with one another.The company cited the law’s preemption clause (US Code Title 47 §332(c)(7)(B)(iv), which says

US Code Title 47§332(c)(7)(B)(iv):

“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

The company filed its lawsuit on the same day that the board was set to come before the City Council and request funding to hire two attorneys to defend the cease-and-desist order in court. News of the lawsuit halted all funding discussions and for the last two council meetings, councilors have declined to take any action one way or another on the board’s request. With no way to hire attorneys and a deadline looming for the board to issue a response to Verizon’s complaints, board members decided to remove the cease-and-desist order.

Board of Health member Brad Gordon said during the meeting last week

“I don’t think that litigation, at this time, is the most effective vehicle to provide a remedy for the folks in that neighborhood — as much as we want to help them,”.

Gordon said the better approach would be to come up with the “right solution” for the residents. Board members said they’d continue to work with the City Council and state representatives on “collaborative discussion” around changing state law around the process and standards for placing and citing cell towers. Orsi said an update on that work would likely come at the next board meeting in July.

[End of article]


This is where we things stood in July, 2021 regarding the FCC RF microwave radiation exposure regulations, which are not protective, when signal strength exceeds what is needed for “5 bars” of telecommunications service in areas accessible to people: higher than: -85 dBM.

Health Impacts of New Cell Tower Reported

Link to July 8, 2021 source article.

PITTSFIELD — First came testimony from people who say their lives were upended when a cell tower began transmitting in September.

“You can’t tell me that I’m not having this going on,” said Elaine Ireland of Alma Street, referring to headaches and nausea.

Then came a highly technical spiel on the meaning of a new field survey of that Verizon Wireless tower’s emissions — a report that found radio frequency radiation levels to be, at most, 1.66 percent of what the Federal Communications Commission allows What didn’t come: Resolution, after months of debate, about the tower’s safety.

“I think we’re just beginning to get towards an answer,” Dr. Alan Kulberg, the Board of Health chair, said Wednesday night, after more than two hours of deliberations alongside fellow members. “But, I think we’re at the beginning of a process.”

Gina Armstrong, the city’s health director, suggested that despite the low radio frequency readings, the issue of the tower’s possible impact on health in the neighborhood cannot be dismissed.

“There can possibly be some health sensitivity among some people,” Armstrong said. ‘There’s a lot more that can be explored.”

On June 2, the board heard from experts in the field of electromagnetic radiation and human health. Armstrong said the city reached out to those experts again for help in interpreting the findings in a report by V-COMM Telecommunications Engineering of New Jersey. Pittsfield hired that company to test levels of radio frequency radiation in 17 locations around the new tower, located at the rear of 877 South St.

Armstrong said the study, which cost the city $3,725, was needed to check whether FCC limits had been exceeded, giving Pittsfield grounds to complain. Three experts weighed in with suggestions earlier Wednesday, too late for their ideas to be fully reviewed by health board members.

But, it already is clear that the board is not inclined to take the V-COMM findings as evidence that the tower has had no impact on health in the surrounding neighborhoods. This week, members of the city’s Board of Health said that reports of health effects in the neighborhood cannot be dismissed despite a recent field study that showed radio frequency radiation to be well within levels allowed by the Federal Communications Commission.

Stephanie Koles of V-COMM summarized the survey’s method and result for the board. She said the study, a “standard tower survey,” found the 115-foot tower, set high on a hill overlooking south Pittsfield, to be operating well within what’s allowed.

One test location produced the highest reading, at 1.66 percent of the FCC threshold. That is less than one-fiftieth of the maximum.

“That’s a very small amount of the limit,” she said. “Now we know that it is operating in compliance.”

Koles, a former Verizon Wireless employee, declined to speak to possible health effects of the tower’s operations.

“We are not involved in any biological research or anything like that,” she said.

Experts who have advised the board and residents caution that the exposure levels allowed by the FCC are dated and do not do enough, as wireless technology has advanced, to protect health.

Brad Gordon, a member of the health board, said he is not ready to give the tower a clean bill of health.

“Yes, there is the FCC measurements, but those will not get you where you need to go in terms of understanding the impact,” he said, a view echoed by Kulberg.

“Perhaps those standards are outmoded. Perhaps those standards don’t take into account health considerations,” said Kulberg, a retired pediatrician. “It should be recognized that we are a board that has taken this seriously and have tried to operate within whatever powers we have.”

Gordon, an attorney, reminded fellow board members that the FCC holds authority over what companies like Verizon Wireless are able to do on towers. The board, he said, is constrained.

“What we want to do is be certain that we are maximizing what we can do,” he said.

Kulberg said health officials should continue to press for state lawmakers to raise the issue of wireless technology and cell tower safety. The board decided this spring to write a letter in support of legislation filed by state Sen. Julian Cyr that would create a commission “to study the impact of electromagnetic (EMR) and radiofrequency (RFR) radiation on consumer protection, public health, and technology in the Commonwealth.”

“Others have more potent standing with those who make the rules,” Kulberg said, suggesting that the next step lies with lawmakers “to bring forth the complaints of the citizens, which might help to establish a different standard [on allowable exposure] in the future.”

Neighborhood accounts

Ireland, the 15 Alma St. resident, told the board that since the tower began operating in September, she has suffered headaches, nausea and ringing in her ears. She said she had not had health issues before.

“Recently, the ringing got so bad that I had to leave my house,” she said. “This has just turned my life completely upside down. Now I have to choose between my health and my house, and I shouldn’t have to do that. It’s really upsetting. I never imagined that something like this could happen.”

Ireland said she believes the tower stands too close to homes and should be relocated. Otherwise, she has no complaint. “I love my cellphone like anyone else and I’m not anti-technology.”

Amelia Coco Gilardi, 13, sat at a microphone before board members as her mother, Courtney Gilardi, stood behind her and displayed the sorts of remedies the family keeps handy to address symptoms of nausea and stomachaches.

“But, they don’t help,” said the teen, who has made appearances before numerous city boards. “Indigestion isn’t the problem, radiation is. No one should have to live like this.”

Another neighbor, carpenter William Coe, said that though he has been fixing up his house at 118 Alma St., he might opt to use it for short-term rentals, or might sell, to get away from exposure to tower transmissions.

“That’s what everyone talks about, getting out,” he said of people in the area, despite their affection for the place. “They’ll bend over backwards to keep the neighborhood together.”

Like Ireland, he said he is experiencing tinnitus, a ringing of the ears.

“When I put on my ear protection, it makes it twice as loud,” he said. “Our neighborhood is going to be a ghost town.”

[End of article]

No forum. No health study. Did Pittsfield oversell DPH help with cell tower problems?

Link to May 3, 2021 source article.

PITTSFIELD — People unhappy about a new cell tower in south Pittsfield heard of two promising developments, when health officials took up their issue last month.

Neither, it turns out, will come to pass as described.

Representatives of the state Department of Public Health will not appear at a forum to answer questions about the safety of electromagnetic radiation. That forum was supposed to be taking place this week.

And experts from the DPH’s Environmental Toxicology Program will not conduct field research in an attempt to determine whether reports of headaches, dizziness and nausea can be linked to the powering up of a Verizon Wireless tower last summer at the rear of a lot off South Street.

The city councilor for Ward 4 came away from an April 12 Board of Health meeting thinking the city’s Health Department had secured support from the DPH for a forum and an initial epidemiological study.

“That was the impression I got,” said Christopher J. Connell. “Absolutely. I thought [Dr.] Alan (Kulberg) was all on board.”

It was Kulberg, the board’s chair, who told people logged on to the online meeting that the city needed wider expertise to understand whether the cell tower was the source of reported ailments. And he and Gina Armstrong, the city’s health director, suggested that the DPH’s involvement would fill that gap.

“I’m not saying there isn’t a causal relationship,” Kulberg said that night, speaking of the tower and health concerns, “but these things have to be done in a rigorous epidemiological way. … We feel this is the most scientifically valid way to do it.

Armstrong said that in the months that residents have been pressing for answers, her department, in addition to dealing with COVID-19, was getting a handle on a complex question.

“We were researching the resources needed to address this problem,” Armstrong said at the meeting. “Working on a plan took some time … to do this to the level that is necessary.”

Armstrong urged people to contact the DPH, suggesting that the agency involvement would bring the deeper look that residents have been seeking in sustained outreach to the Health Department and City Council.

“They will report back to the Board of Health … on how many people have, in fact, been impacted and what the possible association is,” Armstrong said.

The fact that there will be no such report frustrates Connell, who had joined with Ward 5 City Councilor Patrick Kavey to push for action.

“I don’t know what else to do,” Connell said. “They’re either stalling or hoping the issue goes away. We have a health problem, and they’re not responding. It’s a city issue because we allowed the permit for the tower.”

Courtney Gilardi of Alma Street, a leader of neighborhood opposition to the tower, said the resources offered through the DPH are not game-changing.

“They can offer a referral to a doctor who has a background in environmental medicine,” she said. “This is exactly what our physicians offered us seven months ago. We have not moved forward at all.”

Armstrong says now of the outreach to the DPH: “It was unclear to me what level of assessment their referral sources could provide.”

On agenda

When the board meets Wednesday, Armstrong says it again will try to provide answers to residents, in part by building out City Hall’s understanding of the issue.

“The Health (Department) and Board of Health are working through a process to educate ourselves more about cell tower EMF [electromagnetic fields], governmental guidance and other reports on the health impact … and to look at best options for facilitating a plan to address resident concerns,” Armstrong said in an email, in response to questions.

She told The Eagle that the DPH’s role with the issue in Pittsfield will indeed be more limited than the response outlined at the April meeting.

“At this point, MDPH Environmental Toxicology Program is available to speak with residents about their problems related to the South (Street) cell tower,” Armstrong said. “They do not conduct field work for EMF or have referral sources for that.”

A spokeswoman for the DPH confirmed to The Eagle that the agency is not conducting a health study.

Its assistance is limited, she said, to advising Pittsfield health officials and fielding questions from residents and directing them to information on the Bureau of Environmental Health website. In at least one case, the DPH offered a resident a referral to a medical expert.

The department declined the city’s invitation to present information about health issues linked to electromagnetic fields at a health board meeting.

In an April 26 email to city councilors, Armstrong wrote that the health board had decided, at its April 12 meeting, to invite DPH staff to join the board’s early-May session. Residents who joined the session were invited to send in questions that state experts could help answer.

“We are very disappointed to learn that representatives from the environmental toxicology program will not be attending the next BOH meeting,” Armstrong wrote in comments to The Eagle. “The Board is considering other panelists and a format to facilitate information to the public about technology safety at a future date.”

[End of article]

‘MoneyPox’ Update

May 31, 2022 — There Has Been a Significant Development.

By Robert W Malone MD, MS, May 31, 2022 | Original Substack article here.


Will the Blatant Fearporn Ever Stop?

The ‘Bought and Sold’ Media Have No Shame . . .

If Ronald Reagan were still with us, I suspect we would be hearing “There you go again” replays. First came the coordinated media blast of public health-related fearporn. For example, the image from Jake Tapper’s CNN broadcast program “The Lead” of May 20,2022 (above) which appears to me to be a case of smallpox, not monkeypox. Another example involves the self-explanatory paired images below.


And of course the Bill and Melinda Gates – funded GAVI text which is quite blatant, claiming 10% mortality, which I covered in my prior substack article concerning Monkeypox and fearporn.

I almost cannot believe that I am writing this, but since my original substack article on this topic, we have discovered

  • the reveal of an Event 201-style wargame exercise modeled around a bioterror-related release of an engineered Monkeypox virus “caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight.”
  • With amazing (coincidental?) prescience, the “table top exercise” of March 2021 (one year and three months into the Covid-19 event) models a Monkeypox bioterror attack initiated on May 15, 2022.

Note the date of the CNN/Jake Tapper fearporn piece – May 20, 2022. The modeling deployed in the scenario upon which the “exercise” was based predicts 3.2 billion cases and 271 million deaths by December 1, 2023. Of course, the predictive accuracy of the simplistic public health models such as that used to support this scenario have repeatedly proven to be absolutely horrid, and these types of models should be either relegated to the trash heap (or ongoing dumpster fire) as unscientific speculation which is all too frequently weaponized by the fearporn peddlers such as CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post. By now we all know the usual USG and WEF-controlled media players.


As the Italian’s like to say:

Niente e lasciato al caso.

Translated: Nothing happens by chance.

As we now know, the amazing foresight of this modeled date immediately preceded a seminal WHO meeting which has just concluded, in which international health regulation (IHR) modifications which would grant the WHO unprecedented powers to bypass national constitutions (proposed on January 23, 2022 by the US HHS) were actively considered but tabled for a future meeting (November 2022?) in part due to African nation concerns regarding infringement of national sovereignty.

The stated purpose of the “exercise” was remarkably well aligned with the stated objectives and topics proposed by US HHS in the submitted IHR modifications:

  • To establish a new global biosecurity entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks that can accompany certain technology advances. Its mission will be to reduce the risks of catastrophic consequences due to accidents, inadvertent misuse, or deliberate abuse of bioscience and biotechnology by promoting stronger global biosecurity norms and developing tools and incentives to uphold them.
  • To establish a new Joint Assessment Mechanism to investigate high consequence biological events of unknown origin. This new mechanism would operate at the “seam” between existing mechanisms—including World Health Organization (WHO) outbreak investigation capabilities and the United Nations Secretary-General’s Mechanism for investigating alleged deliberate bioweapons use—thereby strengthening UN system capabilities to investigate pandemic origins.
  • To establish a catalytic, multilateral financing mechanism for global health security and pandemic preparedness. The goal is to accelerate sustainable biosecurity and pandemic preparedness capacity-building in countries where resources are most needed.

So, is ‘Moneypox’ yet another Plandemic?

All I can say is ~

Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion

Or perhaps the more appropriate quote would be an Italians proverb

He that deceives me once, its’ his fault; but if twice, its’ my fault.”

Anthony Weldon, The Court and Character of King James (1651)

In my prior substack entitled “Monkeypox, Truth versus Fearporn”, I concluded the essay with the following caveat:

Unless there has been some genetic alteration, either through evolution or intentional genetic manipulation, it is not a significant biothreat, and has never been considered a high threat pathogen in the past.

Which Brings Us to This . . .

May 23, 2022 report report from the Portuguese National Institute of Health.


Just to set the stage, the outbreak seems to be tightly associated with a point of origin at what appear to have been two large European dance party events (“Raves”), in the Canary Islands (“Gay Pride event in the Canary Islands, which drew some 80,000 people”) and “a Madrid sauna”.

The Canary Islands event was the 20th anniversary of “Maspalomas Gay Pride”, which took place from May 5 to May 15 (the precise date of the previously modeled Monkeypox bioweapon release).

The organizers anticipated “a huge parade with over 100,000 participants, boat trips, pool parties and more!”. So, basically, pretty much a perfect opportunity for a Monkeypox super spreader event, whether intentional or inadvertent. Donning my “cynical skeptic-hat” for a moment, if one was looking for an opportunity to seek a pathogen into a highly mobile international population, mindful of the early history of HIV-based AIDS, this would be just what the doctor (Mengle…) ordered.

Multiple cases were soon detected in Portugal, and to their great credit, INSA Portugal got busy and promptly did the deep sequencing necessary to enable building a phylogenic map of the Monkeypox variant associated with the outbreak.

Based on their findings, they have rapidly disclosed both their data as well as a series of startling hypothesis regarding the origin of the currently circulating Monkeypox (West African Clade) Monkeypox. Cutting to the chase, having reviewed their data and paper, I now have to conclude that one of the many “working hypotheses” concerning the origin of this particular virus must be that it is the product of laboratory-based manipulation – precisely as previously modeled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI):Bio/Munich Security Conference.

The authors briefly (and elegantly) summarize the study purpose and methods as follows:

Following the (First draft genome sequence of Monkeypox virus associated with the suspected multi-country outbreak, May 2022 (confirmed case in Portugal) 184), we now release 9 additional genome sequences of Monkeypox virus causing a multi-country outbreak. These sequences were obtained from clinical specimens collected from 9 patients on May 15th and 17th, 2022 through high throughput shotgun metagenomics using Illumina technology (see details bellow), with depth of coverage throughout Monkeypox genome ranging from 38x to 508x (mean of 201x).

The rapid integration of the newly sequenced genomes into the Monkeypox genetic diversity, also including the sequence released by USA* (Gigante et al, Monkeypox virus isolate MPXV_USA_2022_MA001, complete genome – Nucleotide – NCBI 156).

They then proceed to raise the following main observations:

  • The multi-country outbreak most likely has a single origin, with all sequenced viruses released so far* tightly clustering together (Figure 1).
  • Confirmation of the phylogenetic placement unveiled by the first draft sequence Isidro et al, 183: the outbreak virus belongs to the West African clade and is most closely related to viruses (based on available genome data) associated with the exportation of monkeypox virus from Nigeria to several countries in 2018 and 2019, namely the United Kingdom, Israel and Singapore (1, 2).
  • Still, the outbreak virus diverges a mean of 50 SNPs from those 2018-2019 viruses (46 SNPs from the closest reference MPXV_UK_P2, MT903344.1) (Table 1_2022-05-23.zip (15.0 KB)), which is far more than one would expect considering the estimated substitution rate for Orthopoxviruses (3).
  • As also mentioned by Rambaut (Discussion of on-going MPXV genome sequencing 228), one cannot discard the hypothesis that the divergent branch results from an evolutionary jump (leading to a hypermutated virus) caused by APOBEC3 editing (4)
  • We have already detected the first signs of microevolution within the outbreak cluster, namely the emergence of 7 SNPs (Table 2_2022-05-23.zip (10.9 KB)), leading to 3 descendant branches (Figure 1) including a further sub-cluster (supported by 2 SNPs) involving 2 sequences (PT0005 and PT0008). Notably, these two sequences also share a 913bp frameshift deletion in MPXV-UK_P2-010 gene coding for an Ankyrin/Host Range (Bang-D8L); D7L protein (MT903344.1 annotation). Gene loss events were already observed in the context endemic Monkeypox circulation in Central Africa, being hypothesized to correlate with human-to-human transmission (5).

Those not versed in academic science talk may be shaking their head by this point, and probably getting ready to post a comment along the lines of “Why don’t you just tell us that this means in simple language?”

So, at the risk of oversimplification:

  1. Looks like the Monkeypox outbreak comes from a single original virus source. Following the teachings of the “Multiple working hypothesis” model for arriving at scientific “truth” (which was a core part of my education as a young scientist),
    • (a) this could be (for example) a “natural” single jump event from some infected animal into a single human somewhere in the world (who presumably had some relationship to the Maspalomas Gay Pride event). Or
    • (b) it could have come from an intentional release of a viral isolate.
  2. The authors have confirmed that this new outbreak virus maps to the “(less disease-causing) West African group (clade) of Monkeypox viruses — Good news
  3. This single source virus could have come from West Africa or could have come from United Kingdom, Israel or Singapore — consistent with either hypotheses (a) or (b).
  4. Despite the sequences indicating that the virus is most closely related to those isolated in 2018-2019, it is significantly different. This could be due to natural evolution or due to laboratory engineering/gain of function “research” (consistent with hypotheses a) and b). Basically, the authors are indicating that they believe that genome of this virus is either evolving more rapidly than one would expect from a double stranded DNA poxvirus, (left unsaid, or somebody has been messing around with it in a lab).
  5. The authors speculate that the pattern of mutations are consistent with the effects of a natural cellular protein with the abbreviated name of APOBEC3. For those who want to dive into the molecular virology of APOBEC3, here is a nice 2015 J Immunology review. For those seeking the “Cliff Notes” abridged version, see Wikipedia. For the obsessives or aficionados, note that APOBEC3 is associated with specific pattern of base changes- (C→ U). On the basis of their hypothesis regarding the potential role for APOBEC3, I infer that the authors must have detected a statistically significant fraction of C→ U changes in the current isolates relative to the 2018-2019 isolates.
  6. While APOBEC3 is associated with cellular resistance to HIV (and presumably other retroviruses), a quick pubmed search reveals that Poxviruses are resistant to the mutational effects of APOBEC3. For example, see this 2006 paper published in “Virology”. Frankly, whether through lack of curiosity or fear of attack from government controlled media and journals, the failure of the authors to even mention this Virology article is a major oversight at best. My inference and interpretation? On the basis of this sequence analysis report from the INSA team cited above, to me this is looking more like a laboratory manipulated strain than a naturally evolved strain.

In conclusion, the preponderance of current evidence is pointing towards a hypothesis for the origin of this outbreak which is increasingly consistent with prior “war game” scenario planning, remarkably akin to that which occurred during Event 201, which posits emergence of an engineered Monkeypox virus into the human population during mid-May of 2022.

Draw your own conclusions, and do your own diligence.

WHO International Health Regulation Amendments Defeated in Geneva

The Biden Administration suffered an absolutely STUNNING DEFEAT in their attempt to amend the International Health Regulations against the will of “We the People.”

By James Roguski May 28, 2022 | Original Substack article here.

You will NOT hear about this on mainstream media.

Please watch the videos below to learn what happened on Friday May 27, 2022 at the 75th World Health Assembly.

A Summary of What Happened:

  1. On January 18, 2022, the Biden administration proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations. They did their best to keep them hidden.
  2. On May 31, 2022 I published this article to shine a bright light on this issue. For the next two months thousands of people helped to spread the word all around the world.
  3. On Friday May 20, 2022 a document filed in a United Kingdom court case revealed that the Working Group on Pandemic Response was “unable to reach consensus” regarding the amendments. The court case did not cause the lack of consensus, but it did reveal it to the public.
  4. On Tuesday May 24, 2022 a new set of replacement amendments was submitted to the 75th World Health Assembly in violation of Article 55 of the IHR which requires amendments to be submitted at least 4 months prior to the World Health Assembly.
  5. On Friday May 27, 2022 the May 24 REPLACEMENT AMENDMENTS were revised and published by the World Health Organization.
  6. On Friday May 27, 2022 the REVISED REPLACEMENT AMENDMENTS were adopted by the World Health Assembly (see video below).
  7. In my humble opinion, the REVISED REPLACEMENT AMENDMENTS that were approved were absolutely illegitimate. They were merely an empty attempt by the WHO to “save face” in response to the absolutely stunning rejection of the original proposal made by the Biden administration.

The events that occurred in “COMMITTEE A” during the 75th World Health Assembly were filled with intrigue and conflict that was masked by diplomatic politeness.

Please watch the video clips below to see the highlights.

Call James Roguski directly at 310-619-3055 if you would like to know more.

May 24, 2022 — Committee A, 3rd Session

  • Link to Botswana at 54:12–55:27
  • Link to Iran at 1:17:14–1:20:03
  • Link to South Africa at 1:30:22–1:31:23
  • Link to Bangladesh at 1:44:36–1:47:50
  • Link to Namibia at 2:01:23–2:02:17
  • Link to President Cutting Discussion Short in Order to Allow Pharmaceutical Manufacturers to Speak at 2:26:30–2:28:18

May 24, 2022 — Committee A, 4th Session

  • Link to Adopting a Different Resolution and Clapping Like Fools at 1:17:42–1:19:00
  • Link to India at 1:29:07–1:29:59
  • Link to Brunei at 1:45:29–1:48:16
  • Link to Russian Federation at 2:14:05–2:17:04
  • Link to Non-State Actor at 2:58:55–3:00:05

May 25, 2022 — Committee A, 6th Session

  • Link to President of Committee Talking About Transparent Email at 2:33:58–2:35:14

May 27, 2022 — Committee A, 12th Session

Delegates from a number of African nations spoke out against this blatant power grab attempt

A well placed source shared the following:

“The resolution on IHR amendments was not passed at the World Health Assembly, as African countries were concerned that there was inadequate consultation amongst member states, and the process was being rushed. Botswana read the statement on behalf of the 47 AFRO members and I was personally present.”

Moses Keetile, deputy permanent secretary in Botswana’s health ministry, told the assembly on Tuesday on behalf of the Africa region.

“The African region shares the view that the process should not be fast tracked…,”

African delegate in Geneva

“We find that they are going too quickly and these sorts of reforms can’t be rushed through.”

The 75th World Health Assembly (COMMITTEE A) adopted

  • Link to the Resolution.
  • Link to the Illegitimate Revised Replacement Amendments

The reason I state that the amendments were illegitimate is that they were first submitted on May 24, 2022 in clear violation of Article 55 of the International Health Regulations that clearly state the following:

“…the text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.”

Africa objects to the US proposal to Amend International Health Regulations

From https://shabnampalesamohamed.substack.com/p/africa-objects-to-us-proposal-on

Meanwhile, India discovers irregularities in WHO financial audit

By Shabnam Palesa Mohamed

Africa Day, 25 May, has made an impact. In a rare show of African power and solidarity, several African member states objected to proposed International Health Regulations amendments, discussed at the World Health Assembly 75 this week – a move many believe might shake up the World Health Organization’s dominance.

A well placed source shared:

“The resolution on IHR amendments was not passed at the WHA, as African countries were concerned that there was inadequate consultation amongst member states, and the process was being rushed. Botswana read the statement on behalf of the 47 AFRO members and I was personally present.”

According to Reuters, “if Africa continues to withhold support, it could block one of the only concrete reforms expected from the meeting, fraying hopes that members will unite on reforms to strengthen the U.N. health agency’s rules as it seeks a central role for itself in global health policy.”

The IHR seeks to define and detail WHO members’ obligations around public health emergencies and other health matters. The United States government proposed 13 controversial IHR amendments, which give the WHO DG Tedros unilateral power to declare actual or potential health emergencies and expect a response in 48 hours.

The revised proposal then changed just article 59 of the IHR, and accelerated the deadlines for implementing of future amendments to the International Health Regulations.

Bear in mind, a few countries at the WHA submitted draft resolutions to the IHR, which would need, at least according to the WHO process, four months to be considered. These countries are Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, European Union and its Member States, Japan, Monaco, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the United States of America.

The African #WHA75 delegation expressed reservations about these IHR amendments, saying all reforms should be tackled together as part of a “holistic package” at a later stage.

“The African region shares the view that the process should not be fast tracked…,” Moses Keetile, deputy permanent secretary in Botswana’s health ministry, told the assembly on Tuesday on behalf of the Africa region.

“We find that they are going too quickly and these sorts of reforms can’t be rushed through,” said an African delegate in Geneva. The U.S. mission in Geneva did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.

BRIMI emerges: Brazil, Russia, Iran, Malaysia and India

Brazil and Russia form part of the BRICS initiative with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Iran and Malaysia are reported to have also expressed reservations to the proposed IHR amendments, while Russia and Brazil seem set to make big moves on international health policies, or possibly even exit the WHO. Meanwhile, India raised audit concerns on irregularities with WHO financials.

A civil society World Health Assembly monitor shared “Just for your interest, from the external audit done by India team, who yesterday during the financial committee stated that they feel very disappointed that their audit has been ignored by the WHO.”


Time line, duplication, and waste of funding resources

The IHR amendments discussions are proceeding in parallel to talks on a potential new pandemic treaty (#PandemicAccord) , pointing to duplication of efforts and a waste of funding handed to the WHO. Given the trajectory, it appears that both the IHR amendments and the new pandemic accord, if successful, will converge on the world in 2024, unless countries decide to curtail the WHO’s power and take charge of their own health policies.

This 2024 date was highlighted in the working group on IHR amendments:

“Delegates welcomed the final report of the Working Group on strengthening WHO preparedness and response to health emergencies which, among other things, proposed a process for taking forward potential amendments to the IHR (2005). They agreed to continue the group, with a revised mandate and name (the “Working Group on IHR amendments” (WGIHR)) to work exclusively on consideration of proposed IHR amendments. Member States also requested the Director-General to convene an IHR Review Committee to make technical recommendations on the proposed amendments that may be submitted. The Working Group will propose a package of targeted amendments for consideration by the Seventy-seventh Health Assembly.”

“Several developing countries have said that the WHO has too many platforms for negotiation, and it is simply not manageable,” said Nithin Ramakrishnan, consultant for the Third World Network.

US Senators Start to Push Back on WHO Overreach

According to the Daily Caller Republican senator Ron Johnson “introduced legislation Thursday that would push back against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) overreach and ensure the Senate has power over its pandemic treaty.

The Daily Caller first obtained the legislation, titled the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act, which was spearheaded by Johnson and has 15 co-sponsors. The bill mentions the WHO creating an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) and, if passed, would require any agreement produced by the INB to be submitted to the Senate as a treaty in an effort to provide more transparency on the administration.

The lawmakers believe they need to start fighting to prevent the WHO from creating an INB.

Johnson told the Daily Caller prior to officially introducing the legislation.

“The World Health Organization, along with our federal health agencies, failed miserably in its response to COVID-19. Its failure should not be rewarded with a new international treaty that would increase its power at the expense of American sovereignty. What the WHO does need is greater accountability and transparency. This bill makes clear to the Biden administration that any new WHO pandemic agreement must be deemed a treaty and submitted to the Senate for ratification. The sovereignty of the United States is not negotiable.”

Also in the US, Senator Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., is introducing legislation aimed at curtailing the power of the World Health Organization (WHO). This is welcome but ironic, as the amendments were proposed by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

The bill, introduced Thursday, would prevent U.S. officials from being bound to orders or directives given by the WHO or it’s branches. “In addition, it would require U.S. officials to oppose changes to the WHO charter until the House and the Senate agree to adopt the change in a joint resolution of Congress.”


So-Called “Fact checkers” are now attempting to spin denial of this obvious threat to sovereignty

Meanwhile, there is a clear spin attempt from establishment media against opposition to the IHR amendments and the WHO in general. A FactCheck article states “The World Health Organization can make recommendations after the declaration of a global emergency, but it has no control over any nation’s decisions. Yet many in the U.S. falsely claim that amendments proposed by the Biden administration to existing global health regulations, and a new WHO pandemic treaty, will threaten U.S. sovereignty.”

It is not clear whether the writer fully understands the implications of the proposed IHR amendments, a new #PandemicAccord, sanctions for non-compliance, or the clear erosion of personal autonomy, national sovereignty, and democratic values.

The WHO and the IHR were spotlighted at the World Council for Health’s successful Better Way Conference, and a video presentation by WHO expert Dr Astrid Stuckelberger will soon be released. Dr Stuckelberger reminded the audience that the WHO is a small part of a much bigger UN/WEF machine.

Two years after the disastrous mismanagement of Coronavirus, it’s time the world thinks about and acts on a better way for health than giving power away to the WHO, which ignores its own standards on necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality.

That time is now.

CHD Supports Pittsfield, MA Residents

Adapted from an article by By Susan Foster, May 25, 2022 | Original Children’s Health Defense Fund Defender article here.

CHD Seeks to Intervene in Cell Tower Lawsuit Against Verizon

Lawyers working on behalf of Children’s Health Defense today filed a motion to intervene in the legal battle between the Pittsfield, Massachusetts Board of Health and Verizon over the telecom giant’s refusal to remove or relocate a cell tower. The motion was filed on behalf of six Pittsfield residents.

Lawyers working on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) today filed a motion to intervene in the legal battle between the Pittsfield, Massachusetts Board of Health and Verizon over the telecom giant’s refusal to remove or relocate a cell tower.

The motion, filed on behalf of six Pittsfield residents, is related to a lawsuit filed earlier this month by a Verizon Wireless-affiliated cellular provider seeking to invalidate the Board of Health’s April 11 order to remove the tower.

The board on Feb. 2 voted unanimously to issue a cease-and-desist order to Verizon if the company refused to discuss removing or relocating the tower, which residents said is the source of multiple illnesses.

Verizon affiliate Pittsfield Celluar Telephone responded by suing to overturn the board’s order.

Lawyers on behalf of CHD have been advising Pittsfield residents for several months while the matter was before the board and are now filing in the court case to defend the board order.

Specifically, lawyers representing the residents will oppose Verizon’s request that the court rule the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preempts the board’s emergency order.

Verizon Wireless is also arguing the emergency order was improperly issued, is null and void and has no legal effect.

The board went through an exhaustive analysis of the science and medical information in the record it compiled, including testimony from renowned independent scientists and medical doctors, individual diagnoses of the affected residents plus testimony by the residents themselves.

The board order found “convincing evidence that pulsed and modulated [radiofrequency radiation] RFR is bio-active and affects all living things over the long term. RFR can and does also cause more immediate harm and injury to human beings.”

The order also noted the cell tower rendered the historic Shacktown section of Pittsfield:

“[u]nfit for human habitation — because the continued exposure causes them severe pain, unable to function, and endangers and materially impairs their health and safety. … this evidence clearly demonstrates to this Board that specific Shacktown residents in the vicinity of the facility have suffered and are suffering injuries and illnesses directly caused by the pulsed and modulated RFR emitted by the facility in issue, and for so long as the facility is in operation it will continue to be injurious to the public health and continue to drive residents from their homes …

“The Verizon Wireless 877 South Street wireless facility operated by Verizon Wireless is a public nuisance, a cause of sickness, and a trade which may result in a nuisance or be dangerous to the public health.”

Commenting on the case, Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel, said:

“CHD is committed to protecting children from all kinds of toxins, and wireless emissions are just that. CHD has been exposing the risks and harms associated with the heedless stampede toward powerful wireless base stations everywhere and anywhere.”

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in August 2021 agreed, handing CHD a win over the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in EHT et al v. Federal Communications Commission, ruling the FCC’s decision to retain its 26-year-old RFR regulatory guidelines were, for the most part, “arbitrary and capricious.”

Holland said.

“The situation in Pittsfield now confirms our arguments to the FCC and the court that the FCC’s current emission limits are obsolete. The science is clear: Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency radiation (EMF/RF) emitted from cell towers is destroying the environment, putting our children’s future at risk and now — as the expert Pittsfield Board of Health specifically found — this tower is already making a cluster of at least 17 residents severely ill.”

CHD is representing four of the affected families, Holland said, in an effort to “ensure the cellular company is held to account for the injuries it has caused.”

“These families must be allowed to return to their homes and live in an environment that is not filled with electrosmog,” said Holland. “We will explain to the court that the board’s order is lawful and is not preempted by federal law.”

Stating that “this matter should not be in court at all, much less federal court,” Holland said the attorneys will move to dismiss the matter “at the outset, because the cell company’s legal contentions are both premature and invalid.”

Appendix A: May 25, 2020 Motion to Intervene


Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-10718-MGM

Pittsfield Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Plaintiff


Board of Health of the City of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, Defendants


Courtney Gilardi, Charlie Herzig, Judy Herzig, Mark Markham, Angelika Markham, and Elaine Ireland (collectively “Intervenors”), with the support of additional Centerville residents, move pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 to intervene. As the basis, therefore, the Intervenors state:

  1. On May 10, 2022, Pittsfield Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon Wireless”) filed this action challenging an Emergency Show Cause Order issued on April 11, 2022 (“Order”), by defendant Pittsfield Board of Health (“Board”) which:
    • (i) declared that the operation of a personal wireless services facility located at 877 South Street, Pittsfield, Massachusetts (the “Facility”) by Verizon Wireless is a public nuisance and violates various Massachusetts state and local health codes and laws;
    • (ii) required that Verizon Wireless show cause why the Board should not issue an order requiring that the Facility cease operations;
    • (iii) required that Verizon Wireless request a hearing on the Order within seven days of its issuance (i.e., by April 18, 2022); and (iv) if Verizon Wireless failed to request a hearing, declared that the order would become a notice of discontinuance requiring that Verizon Wireless abate and eliminate the nuisance and violations of the state sanitary code within seven days of the expiration of the period to request a hearing (i.e., by April 25, 2022).
  2. Verizon Wireless alleges in its Complaint that the Order is preempted by Section 332(c)(7)(b)(iv) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Communications Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv),1 as the Order purportedly regulates “the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”
  3. The Intervenors are:
    • (i) individuals who live in the immediate vicinity of the Facility which is subject to the Order;
    • (ii) among the group of residents that were harmed by the Facility, and
    • (iii) each expressly named in the Order.
  4. The Intervenors participated in proceedings before the Board and presented testimony and evidence to the Board, which the Board found to be credible and persuasive.
  5. The Intervenors have the right to intervene as a matter of right, given that the disposition of this case will impair or impede the Intervenors’ ability to protect their interests unless they are adequately represented in connection with the instant matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).
  6. Even if the Intervenors may not intervene as a matter of right, they have a significant interest in the outcome of the instant litigation and “a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”
  7. Assuming without conceding that 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) does have some application here, as shown below Intervenors meet the test for both “as a matter of right” and “permissive” intervention under prevailing circuit precedent addressing that section.
  8. The Intervenors have submitted a memorandum in support of their motion.

WHEREFORE, the Intervenors respectfully request that this Court:

A. Allow the Intervenors to intervene and grant them full party status in the instant litigation; and,

B. Order such further relief as is just and equitable.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Paul Revere, III
Paul Revere, III
(BBO #636200)

Attorney for Courtney Gilardi, Charlie Herzig, Judy Herzig, Mark Markham, Angelika Markham, and Elaine Ireland,

Law Offices of Paul Revere, III
226 River View Lane
Centerville, Massachusetts 02632
(508) 237-1620

Turn Up the Heat on the WHO

18. Turn Up the Heat (source)

12 of the 13 Amendments Appear to Have Been Removed From Consideration, but the Knockout Punch Still Needs to Be Delivered. See Updates on WHO’s Proposed Amendments to International Health Regulations — May 21-22, 2022

May 21, 2022
May 22, 2022

The massive response from people all over the world in opposition to the amendments to the International Health Regulations, along with legal actions in the UK seems to have resulted in 12 of the 13 amendments to the International Health Regulations being REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION . . . but can we trust this news? Anything can happen leading up to May 24, 2022 when this agendized item will be considered.

The Last Remaining Amendment That May Be Considered by the 75th World Health Assembly Is Below

This Matters Because It Has a Direct Impact on Article 61.

Send this link everywherehttps://wireamerica.org/2022/05/monkeypox-is-deja-vu-all-over-again/

  • Send it to your Congressperson and Senators

  • Send it to your family, friends and associates


The 75th World Health Assembly is Currently Under Way, From May 22-28, 2022

Stop the WHO: 18 Articles in This Series

  1. Link to Pandemic Treaty
  2. Link to The People’s Treaty
  3. Link to Speaking Truth To Power
  4. Link to WAKE UP and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution
  5. Link to Abolish the WHO
  6. Link to Pandemic Mitigation Project
  7. Link to An Open Letter to the WHO
  8. Link to We are in a Spiritual War
  9. Link to Sound the Alarm
  10. Link to Multilingual information regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
  11. Link to They will control nothing, and we will be free
  12. Link to Break the Spell
  13. Link to Send This Email to Congress
  14. Link to URGENT: Speak Your Mind Now
  15. Link to NewSpeak
  16. Link to Seeking Clarification
  17. Link to Questions
  18. Link to Turn up the Heat

Monkeypox is DéJà Vu All Over Again

Monkeypox, is really just Moneypox

Note: actually, Monkeypox and Smallpox are indistinguishable in the lab. Monkeypox was just a clever renaming of Smallpox by Larry Brilliant, MD — a renaming job that benefits the World Health Organization (WHO) and Big Pharma ‘s propaganda narrative that attempts to herd the sheeple into taking additional dangerous and unnecessary so-called “vaccines.” This is the link to the referenced paper: “The Real Cost of Medical Decision-Making in a Commercialized, Politicized Health Care System.”

Don’t Fall for This Ruse; “We the People” need to turn up the heat and achieve the Great Flushing of any more such Globalist “Great Reset” steps

Those acquainted with the New York Yankees storied history in Major League Baseball will be familiar with Yogi Berra, a colorful catcher for the Yankees and a fountain of now-quite-famous “Yogi-isms“.

  • “Baseball is 90 percent mental. The other half is physical.”
  • “He hits from both sides of the plate. He’s amphibious.”
  • “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
  • “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

That last “Yogi-ism” applies to the World Health Organization (WHO) and other member of its international crimes-against-humanity syndicate . . . “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

Bioweapon #1 (Covid-19) worked so well . . . now Gates, Fauci, the WHO and their minions are releasing Bioweapon #2 (Monkeypox) — using the same playbook.

Don’t Fall for those Same, Old, Tired Tricks a Second Time . . .

Yes, we are seeing another “Event 201”-styled Staged Pandemic-Response Exercise (funded by the same people) — Complete with Simulated Newscasts

This shows the NEXT SCHEDULED Pandemic — Emergencies that will NOT END Until Our Freedoms Are Eroded and Universal Surveillance is Established

Source: https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/NTI_Paper_BIO-TTX_Final.pdf

Nov 2021 Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) Review of March 2021 “tabletop exercise” re: a fictional outbreak of Monkeypox Moneypox — “We the People” need to turn up the heat and achieve the Great Flushing of any more such Globalist “Great Reset” steps

Read the Dec 8, 2021 Testimony from NTI’s Jaime Yassif at the U.S. House Hearing on “Biosecurity for the Future: Strengthening Deterrence and Detection”

Report Shows Gates Foundation, WHO, and ‘Big-Pharma’ Execs Took Part in Monkeypox Pandemic ‘Simulation’

Adapted from an article by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. , May 23, 2022 | Original The Defender article here.

The World Health Organization on Friday held an emergency meeting to discuss the outbreak of monkeypox after just 100 cases were reported across 12 countries, as a report surfaced showing the Gates Foundation, WHO and Pharma execs in March 2021 conducted a monkeypox pandemic “simulation.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) on Friday held an emergency meeting to discuss the outbreak of monkeypox after just 100 cases were reported across 12 countries. Days before the WHO convened, the Biden administration placed a $119 million order for monkeypox vaccines after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed six people in the U.S. were being monitored for the viral infection, and one person had tested positive.

Here we go, again . . . identified cases only . . . are the tests accurate?

  • Belgium on Sunday became the first country to introduce a compulsory 21-day quarantine for monkeypox patients after reporting four cases of the disease in the last week, Politico reported.

  • The 100 newly reported cases, or suspected cases, garnered attention because many of them do not appear to be linked to travel to Africa, where in some regions, monkeypox is endemic.

  • Cases were reported in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. No deaths are reported as of yet.

  • So what? Other public health professionals said there is a low risk to the public and a low likelihood that the epidemic will last long. Any actual evidence of an emergency?

  • Monkeypox is just “renamed” small pox as you can read in this paper.

Questions are popping up about the similarity between a March 2021 tabletop “simulation” of a monkeypox outbreak and a similar simulation in 2019 — Event 201 — which amazingly (cough, cough) “predicted” the COVID-19 pandemic

Monkeypox — What is it?

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 in monkeys, although they are not the source of the virus. It was first identified in humans in 1970. The virus is particularly prevalent in Central and West Africa and is considered a rare zoonotic disease, which means that it is caused by germs that spread between animals and people.

Monkeypox typically is spread by wild animals, such as in instances when a human is bitten or comes into contact with animal blood or bodily fluids. However, human-to-human transmission, while rare, is possible.

The virus is known to enter the human body through broken skin, the respiratory tract, or the eyes, nose or mouth, for instance through large respiratory droplets or through contact — including sexual contact — with bodily fluids or lesions, or indirectly through contaminated clothing or linens. “Common household disinfectants can kill it.”

Symptoms of monkeypox infection tend to be mild, and include fever, rash and swollen lymph nodes, and occasionally intense headache, back pain, muscle aches, lack of energy and skin eruptions which can cause painful lesions, scabs or crusts.

There are two strains of monkeypox: a milder West African and a stronger Central African strains. The cases identified in the recent outbreak all appear to have been caused by the milder West African strain.

Did the March 2021 ‘pandemic exercise’ “predict” (cough, cough) a monkeypox outbreak? If so, then Klaus Schwab and the WEF have a bridge to sell you . . .

In October 2019, just weeks before the outbreak of COVID-19, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, along with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, organized “Event 201,” a “high-level pandemic exercise” that mirrored what later followed with COVID-19 pandemic.

In March 2021, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), in conjunction with the Munich Security Conference, held a “tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats.” This “fictional exercise scenario” involved the simulation of “a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that first emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months.”

According to NTI, this exercise, which was “[d]eveloped in consultation with technical and policy experts,” brought together “19 senior leaders and experts from across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe with decades of combined experience in public health, biotechnology industry, international security, and philanthropy.”Not a single elected representative of the people participated — only hand-picked so-called experts.

The exercise culminated in a report, published November 2021, titled “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats: Results from the 2021 Tabletop Exercise Conducted in Partnership with the Munich Security Conference.” This report contains key findings from the exercise, an recommends “actionable recommendations for the international community.”, which, of course, includes more centralized control.

The outcome of this “exercise scenario” reported a fictional pandemic which mirrors quite closely the actual events documented for Covid-19:, “a bioweapon released by terrorists, using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight.” Nations have yet to prosecute the Covid-19 terroists, but the cases have been filed.

The fictional start date of the monkeypox pandemic in this exercise was May 15, 2022. The first European case of monkeypox was identified on May 7, 2022. Wow. What a coincidence . . . Now about that bridge . . .

Key findings from the report included:

  • More surveillance, of course: a “need” for “a more robust, transparent detection, evaluation, and early warning system that can rapidly communicate actionable information about pandemic risks.”
  • More requirements, of course: “gaps in national-level preparedness,” which will require national governments to “improve preparedness by developing national-level pandemic response plans built upon a coherent system of ‘triggers’ that prompt anticipatory action, despite uncertainty and near-term costs,” described as a “no-regrets” policymaking basis.
  • More binding laws, of course: “Gaps in biological research governance” in order to “meet today’s security requirements” and be “ready for significantly expanded challenges in the future.”
  • More money, of course: “Insufficient financing of international preparedness for pandemics,” and a lack of financing for countries to “make the essential national investments in pandemic preparedness.”

So, in short, a thin story to justify an attempted power grab. Don’t fall for this ruse.

Key recommendations from the report include:

  • More data sharing, of course: Bolstering international systems “for pandemic risk assessment, warning, and investigating outbreak origins,” calling upon the WHO to “establish a graded, transparent, international public health alert system” and the United Nations system to “establish a new mechanism for investigating high-consequence biological events of unknown origin.”
  • Triggers defined/controlled by whom? The development and implementation of “national-level triggers for early, proactive pandemic response,” including the adaptation of the “no-regrets” approach to responding to pandemics via “anticipatory action” based on “triggers” that would automatically generate a response to “high-consequence biological events.”
  • Germ team hit squads to enforce quarantines without due process? The establishment of “an international entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances,” that would “support interventions throughout the bioscience and biotechnology research and development life cycle — from funding, through execution, and on to publication or commercialization.”
  • More money, of course: The development of “a catalytic global health security fund to accelerate pandemic preparedness capacity building in countries around the world,” which would include “[n]ational leaders, development banks, philanthropic donors, and the private sector” with the aim of establishing and funding “a new financing mechanism to bolster global health security and pandemic preparedness” and that would incentivize “national governments to invest in their own preparedness over the long term.”
  • Anyone representing the people’s interests? Of course not. The establishment of “a robust international process to tackle the challenge of supply chain resilience,” based on a “high-level panel’ that would be convened by the UN secretary-general “to develop recommendations for critical measures to bolster global supply chain resilience for medical and public health supplies.”

As stated in the report:

“In national pandemic response plans, specific readiness measures would be ‘triggered’ based on factors related to the potential severity of the outbreak, expected delays in situational awareness, and the time it would take to implement response measures and see results.”

The Same Covid-19 Playbook for Monkeypox which is not airborne? Why?

What would be “triggered” bears a remarkable similarity to the COVID-19-related measures of the past two-plus years.The report states:

“Although triggered actions would vary depending upon the particular needs of the country, in most cases the goals are the same: slow the spread of disease to buy time and flatten the epidemiological curve, while using that time to scale up public health and medical systems to keep up with growing caseloads and save lives.

NPIs [non-pharmaceutical interventions] such as mask mandates and ceasing mass gatherings were deemed to be critical for blocking chains of disease transmission.

Participants generally did not endorse travel restrictions such as border closures, but travel health screening measures [i.e., vaccine passports] were viewed as valuable.”

According to the results of the simulated scenario, the fictional countries that “prioritized keeping their economies open, undertaking little-to-no NPIs, and downplaying the virus and its potential impacts have experienced much worse outcomes in terms of illness and mortality” than those fictional countries that “promptly adopted aggressive measures to slow virus transmission,” such as “shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social-distancing measures, and implementing mask mandates,” in addition to establishing “large-scale testing and contact-tracing operations.”

This all, of course is to what have learned from accurate, verifiable data from Covid-19.

Gates Foundation, Big-Pharma execs,and the WHO personnel who participated in monkeypox pandemic simulation

Who took part in the NTI’s monkeypox pandemic simulation?

Key participants included:

  • Dr. Ruxandra Draghia-Akli, global head of Johnson & Johnson Global Public Health R&D and Janssen Research & Development.
  • Dr. Chris Elias, president of the global development division of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
  • Dr. George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the Chinese CDC).
  • Dr. Margaret (Peggy) A. Hamburg, interim vice president for global biological policy and programs at NTI, a member of the global health scientific advisory committee for the Gates Foundation and a member of the board of GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance.
  • Sam Nunn, a former U.S. senator who is the founder and co-chair of NTI.
  • Dr. Michael Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Program and a highly visible figure during COVID-19 times.
  • Dr. Petra Wicklandt, head of corporate affairs for Merck.

Do you see any self-interest in this list?

Several of the participants listed above also “participated” in Event 201.

The authors of the report also stand out for their background.

For example, Dr. Jaime M. Yassif, vice president of NTI global biological policy and programs, holds a Ph.D. in biophysics from the University of California-Berkeley and a master’s degree in science and security from the King’s College, London, war studies department.

  • Yassif previously led the initiative on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness at the Open Philanthropy Project, including the management of nearly $40 million in biosecurity grants, the “initiation of new biosecurity work in China and India,” and “establishment of the Global Health Security Index.”

  • She also previously advised the U.S. Department of Defense on science and technology policy and worked on the Global Health Security Agenda at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-author Chris Isaac, program officer for NTI’s Global Biological Policy and Programs team, “has been involved with synthetic biology through the Internationally Genetically Engineered Machines Competition since the start of his scientific career” and “is an alumnus of the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.”

The report is the product of a partnership between NTI, co-founded by Nunn and Ted Turner, and the Munich Security Conference. Both NTI ($3.5 million, for “vaccine development”) and the Munich Security conference ($1.2 million) received funding from the Gates Foundation.

The report itself was funded by the Open Philanthropy project, one of whose main funders is Dustin Moscovitz, co-founder of Facebook along with Mark Zuckerberg.

Open Philanthropy, over the past decade, has provided donations and grants to the following entities and for the following purposes:

  • $166.9 million for “global health.”
  • $90.2 million for “biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.”
  • $18 million for “global catastrophic risks.”
  • $40.2 to Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
  • $17.9 to NTI.
  • $2.2 to The Guardian.
  • $1.6 to Rockefeller University.

Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at center of multiple tabletop exercises

Johns Hopkins — the bastion of innacuate Covid-19 cases and deaths — again? Why would anyone believe them a second time around?

NTI and the Munich Security Conference are not new to “tabletop exercises” — their report highlights previous simulations, including a 2019 report titled “A Spreading Plague,” and a 2020 report titled “Preventing Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.”

Other simulations in the recent past, in addition to Event 201, include:

  • Operation Dark Winter (June 2001, less than three months before the 9/11 attacks and subsequent anthrax scare, “examining the national security, intergovernmental, and information challenges of a biological attack on the American homeland”).
  • Operation Atlantic Storm (January 2005, “designed to mimic a summit of transatlantic leaders forced to respond to a bioterrorist attack”).
  • The Clade X exercise (May 2018, “to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue in order to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail”). Yassif helped develop the Clade X exercise.

The common denominator among all of these simulations? The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which published a document titled “The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028,” comprising “a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future.”

Predictions for the future don’t end there, however. For instance, in September 2017, NTI and the WEF organized a roundtable discussion on the current state of biological risks presented by technology advancement in light of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

And in January 2020, NTI and the WEF again joined forces, issuing a report titled “Biosecurity Innovation and Risk Reduction: A Global Framework for Accessible, Safe and Secure DNA Synthesis.”

According to that report:

“Rapid advancements in commercially available DNA synthesis technologies — used for example to artificially create gene sequences for clinical diagnosis and treatment — pose growing risks, with the potential to cause a catastrophic biological security threat if accidentally or deliberately misused.”

Merck, whose head of corporate affairs participated in the monkeypox simulation, was the subject of an FBI and CDC investigation in November 2021 regarding 15 suspicious vials labeled “smallpox” at a Merck facility in Philadelphia.

Bill Gates no stranger to predicting the future

Bill Gates has himself been remarkably prescient with his predictions of future events. Here are some of Gates’ predictions:

  • In a November 2015 TED talk, he stated “[i]f anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war. Not missiles, but microbes.”
  • In a 2017 speech at that year’s Munich Security Conference, he said “the next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus,” arguing in favor of the merger of “health security” and “international security.”
  • In May 2021, Gates said “[s]omebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus so that the cost, the chance of running into this is more than that of naturally-caused epidemics ”
  • In November 2021, Gates publicly pondered, “[y]ou say, OK, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports? You know, how would the world respond to that? There’s naturally-caused epidemics and bioterrorism-caused epidemics that could even be way worse than what we experienced today.”
  • In February 2022, Gates warned that the next pandemic “… won’t necessarily be a coronavirus or even the flu. It is likely to be a respiratory virus. Because, with all the human travel we have now, that’s the one that can spread in such a rapid way,” emphasizing the significance of providing sufficient funds to the private sector and academia to build better vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.
  • Earlier this month, Gates called for the development of a so-called “Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization” (GERM) initiative, stating that present WHO funding was “not at all serious about pandemics” and that $1 billion a year would be needed to operate this initiative.
  • Also this month, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced “a new financial commitment of up to US $125 million to help end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for future pandemics,” with much of the money going toward “strengthening health systems in low-income countries, enhancing integrated disease monitoring, expanding access to pandemic tools, and helping countries manage COVID-19 alongside other pressing health needs.”
  • In his new book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic,” Gates argues that, despite COVID fatigue, the world must focus on preparing for future pandemics, regardless of whether a disease is circulating.

Now, how do we best usher the self-serving Bill Gates off the World Stage?

May 18, 2022: Bavarian Nordic to Manufacture First Freeze-Dried Doses of Smallpox Vaccine [also for the protection against Monkeypox]

. . . Upon Exercise of Contract Option by the U.S. Government

Source: https://www.bavarian-nordic.com/investor/news/news.aspx?news=6569

  • USD 119 million option exercised for the manufacturing of freeze-dried JYNNEOS® in 2023 and 2024
  • This represents the first set of options with a total value of USD 299 million to convert the existing bulk vaccine, previously purchased by BARDA, to approximately 13 million freeze-dried JYNNEOS doses

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, May 18, 2022 – Bavarian Nordic A/S (OMX: BAVA) announced today that the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has exercised the first options under the contract to supply a freeze-dried version of JYNNEOS® smallpox vaccine, thus allowing for the first doses of this version to be manufactured and invoiced in 2023 and 2024.

The options have a value of USD 119 million and represent the first options exercised to convert bulk vaccine, which has already been manufactured and invoiced under previous contracts with BARDA, into freeze dried doses of JYNNEOS smallpox vaccine. Additional options on the contract valued at USD 180 million, if exercised support conversion of up to a total of approximately 13 million freeze dried doses of JYNNEOS smallpox vaccine that are expected to be manufactured in 2024 and 2025. The majority of the bulk vaccine for these doses has already been manufactured and invoiced.

The transfer of the freeze-drying process to our new fill and finish plant in Kvistgaard was initiated last year and following an FDA inspection in 2022 will lead to commercial manufacturing in 2023. A supplement to the existing liquid frozen JYNNEOS BLA will be made comprising the Phase 3 data, which has already been completed and reported, together with the manufacturing data to support the approval of the freeze-dried version of JYNNEOS in 2024. In parallel to these activities, we will, with the award of this first option, begin to manufacture and invoice freeze-dried JYNNEOS doses in 2023 and 2024.

Paul Chaplin, President and CEO of Bavarian Nordic said:

“We are pleased to announce the exercise of the first options under our contract with the U.S. government to deliver a freeze-dried version of the smallpox vaccine with an improved shelf-life, which will be manufactured at our new fill and finish facility. This marks a significant milestone in our long-standing partnership with the U.S. government to ensure availability of life-saving vaccines for the entire population.”

The contents of this announcement do not affect the Company’s expectations for the financial results for 2022.

This project has been supported with US federal funds from the

  1. Department of Health and Human Services;
  2. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response;
  3. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority,

. . . all under Contract No. HHSO100201700019C.

About Bavarian Nordic smallpox vaccine contracts with the U.S. government

Since 2003, Bavarian Nordic has worked with the U.S. government on the development, manufacturing and supply of a non-replicating smallpox vaccine to ensure all populations can be protected from smallpox, including people with weakened immune systems who are at high risk of adverse reactions to traditional smallpox vaccines, which are based on replicating vaccinia virus strains. To date, the Company has supplied nearly 30 million doses of the liquid-frozen version to HHS, with the vast majority being delivered for emergency use before approval of the vaccine by the FDA in 2019.

Since 2009, BARDA has supported the development of a freeze-dried version of the vaccine with longer shelf-life to replace the stockpile and in 2017 awarded the Company a ten-year contract valued at USD 539 million for supply of freeze-dried vaccines. Part of this contract (USD 37 million) has funded the Phase 3 study. Also, under this contract Bavarian Nordic has produced bulk vaccine worth of USD 253 million which will add to the existing stock of bulk manufactured under previous orders, collectively resulting in approximately 13 million doses for future delivery. The majority of the contract (USD 299 million), however, will be realized upon supply of the freeze-dried doses, which will be manufactured at the Company’s the new fill-finish facility.

About Bavarian Nordic

Bavarian Nordic is a fully integrated vaccines company focused on the development, manufacturing and commercialization of life-saving vaccines. We are a global leader in smallpox vaccines and have been a long-term supplier to the U.S. Government of a non-replicating smallpox vaccine, which has been approved by the FDA, also for the protection against monkeypox.

The vaccine is approved as a smallpox vaccine in Europe and Canada. Our commercial product portfolio furthermore contains market-leading vaccines against rabies and tick-borne encephalitis.

Using our live virus vaccine platform technology, MVA-BN®, we have created a diverse portfolio of proprietary and partnered product candidates designed to save and improve lives by unlocking the power of the immune system, including an Ebola vaccine, which is licensed to the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson. We are also committed to the development of a next generation COVID-19 vaccine. For more information visit www.bavarian-nordic.com.


  • Europe: Rolf Sass Sørensen, Vice President Investor Relations, Tel: +45 61 77 47 43
  • US: Graham Morrell, Paddock Circle Advisors, graham@paddockcircle.com, Tel: +1 781 686 9600
  • Company Announcement no. 17 / 2022
  • Published on May 18, 2022