Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
If you thought the last Dr David Martin talk was exciting, this one, which he gave at the Red Pill Expo is positively electrifying.
He says that this is “final” speech but that we will be hearing from him, only it will be a new version: No more Mr Nice Guy. We get to see a bit of that in this presentation. He is angry.
David has put the names and faces of all of the major players in the theater of the COVID War onto one slide, which he says is important, because “We energize the forces of darkness when we anonymize them and when we see their faces on a screen, we realize that they’re merely individuals that have lost the social contract with humanity.”
The purpose of this talk is to de-mystify the “they” of the COVID War.
THE COVID PRIVATEERS
“How many of you are familiar with the company, Anser? I love having this moment. Do you know they are the single largest contractor in the entire COVID terrorism campaign?…
“The companies on the right, that you think are the ones running this show [Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Ridgeback, Gilead Sciences], are in fact a front [for the companies on the left, Anser, Fors-Marsh, Palantir, Publicis Sapient].
“And you know what a front organization is? They’re the ones that are supposed to take the flack and take the heat. The ones on the left are the ones that actually got the money. Operation Warp Speed went to Anser.
“You didn’t know that, because you were told by the media that it went to Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and all that kind of stuff. That’s not true. The prime contract of Operation Warp Speed went through Anser, a company none of you had heard of!
“And you didn’t hear about them because the contract was signed by ATI, a company based in South Carolina, a company whose history has been government defense contracts for the purposes of propaganda! I wish I made that up. The prime contractor selected to run Operation Warp Speed was a propaganda expert for the US Department of Defense…
“Anser is the way for the Federal Government never to be liable for the criminal conspiracy they know they ran. They are now one of the top ten Federal Contractors in history, below Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and all those guys.
“Those names you know. You don’t know Anser, the single company that, by COVID rose – the highest-ranked rise in the history of federal contracting; the highest single-year rise, ever was Anser – and none of you know who they are!…
“Anser Corporation, they’re the ones running Operation Warp Speed and they’ve been set up to shield these manufacturers from ever taking the financial liability for their willful misconduct. And one day, everybody’s gonna go, ‘Let’s sue Pfizer! Let’s go sue everybody else! And the only problem is when we go to sue them, they say, ‘Hey! It wasn’t us!’ And they’re right and all of us were asleep. And I’m talking to a woke crowd, here and all of you were asleep.
“Don’t tell me you’re awake if you’re still sleeping, because if you didn’t know who Anser is, you’re still asleep!
IT GETS WORSE…
“It gets worse. Fors-Marsh, anybody know Fors-Marsh?…They’re the branding agency that branded COVID. They’re the ones who make sure we find hospitals that are overrun with people. They’re the ones who find kids that died of COVID right before the FDA needs to vote on giving kids injections. They’re the ones that go around the world, making sure every message is always the same: ‘We will not return to normal until we have a vaccine.’ Thank you, Justin Trudeau! Where’d you get the script? From Fors-Marsh! And how many of you knew that? None of ya!
“How about Palantir? Hey, that’s a weird one, isn’t it? Peter Thiel, who has successfully run a company that has lost $200 million plus, every year for about seven or eight years, goes public in the middle of COVID. Isn’t timing interesting? Isn’t it fascinating that a company that’s done nothing but lose billions of dollars goes public in the middle of the worst economic cycle we’ve had? Isn’t that funny? And did you actually go back and read their public offering? Hah! Funny! I know you didn’t, because there really wasn’t one, that’s why you didn’t read it!
“Because they went public in this very bizarre, backdoor way of actually selling founder’s stock into the market, so we got personally-enriched – personally-enriched – using the public market as the laundering facility. Isn’t that brilliant?
“But let’s look at what they did for our COVID scandal. They actually came up with a thing called Gotham Data Tracking…you know what that does? That’s making sure that every time you turn your phone on, when you get off the plane, when you cross the state line, it gives you a little tag that goes, ‘Hey, do you want a COVID alert in your neighborhood?’ You know why? Because you are being monitored. Your phone is being monitored. Your transactions are being monitored, your credit cards are being monitored, your health behavior’s being monitored, your vaccine status is being monitored and it’s all done under the contract run by Gotham Data Sciences, the company that went public during COVID – and none of you knew about this.
“And you’ve been to Red Pills! And you still haven’t taken the Red Pill! And by the way, I’m not even to the good slide, yet. So be depressed! ‘Cause it’s getting worse!
“Publicis Sapient, the Health and Human Services’ IT contract. Have you ever wondered how the data never seems to add up? Somebody always has allegedly the same reportable data?
“Publicis Sapient has the Health and Human Services’ IT contract to consolidate all of the data, so guess what happens? Everybody has the same number of COVID cases to report, when somebody from the media calls and says, ‘Hey, how many cases do we have?’ ‘Oh, 40,000’. ‘Oh, round number, 40,000’…
“When, in the course of human history has a round number involving the word ‘thousand’ ever happened? There’s never been a 10,000 heart day, there’s never been a round number day – until you actually control the Department of Health and Human Services’ entire IT platform and not one of you knows that that’s a single contract, run by Publicis Sapient…
“You’ve been focused on the right hand side the whole time and the left hand side is doing the dirty work.
THE COVID PIRATES
“Now, why do I call them ‘privateers’? How many are familiar with the difference between a pirate and a privateer? Pirates go rape and marauding and stealing and…a privateer is the same thing, that has permission to do it by a government that’s gone corrupt. That’s what these are (points to the slide of COVID contractors). They’re the privateers. But hey, since we have privateers, it feels only appropriate that if we have a world of privateers, we should also…have a world of pirates. And here’s our pirates.”
“Pirates. UNC Chapel Hill, I talked about that. That’s the guy who actually made the weapon, Ralph Baric. Since 1999, $100 million to weaponize the particles of coronavirus. Over $100 million. You’ve heard about $3.7 million going to Wuhan – ohhhh – 3.7 million, that feels like a bad number.
“And how ’bout $28 billion of that coming from DARPA for their bioweapons initiative? Anybody heard of $28 billion that went through Anthony Fauci at NIAID? Anyone hear about the $20 billion that went directly to UNC Chapel Hill, that weaponized spike protein?
“You haven’t heard about that, you haven’t heard about that because we’ve been talking about $3.7 million going to Wuhan. Stop being distracted by the cover story!…Because the distraction is where the interesting thing is.
“UNC Chapel Hill, Vanderbilt, Emory, Johns Hopkins and University of California: those are the pirates that have made the most money on federally-granted, disclosed money going into the university sector. I’m calling them ‘pirates’ for a very good reason. They justify all of this in the name of science and education…
“I don’t even care whether these people pretend to hide behind the ‘It’s an academic research project’ to try and get out of the bioweapons definition. The bioweapons definition says that if you enable a foreign entity to build something known to harm humanity, you have already created a felony, you are going to jail for the rest of your life and you are liable for $100 million penalty.
“So guess what? Welcome to Hell, all five of these universities! Because they’re all felons! All of ’em!
“And how ’bout the right hand side? MIT, New York University Langone – hey, by the way, Langone? Where did that name come from? Ken Langone? Anybody? Oh! I’m not supposed to say that name out loud, Ken Langone, except I just did, didn’t I? Ken Langone…
“They’re actually putting their name on the letterhead and you don’t know who to look for! You’re still being told, ‘Oh, it’s the Rothschilds and it’s the Rockefellers!
“No, it’s not! It’s the guy who put his name on the facility! How many of you know who Ken Langone is? Guess what? Look it up! Because that’s a pretty big thing that you should be aware of and unfortunately, you’re not aware of it, for a very good reason because he hid it in plain site, on the name of the medical center. New York University Langone, like that’s a really hard thing to find.
“DZIF Charité…you’ve heard of Dr Christian Drosten, the Crazy-in-Chief in Germany who’s kind of Anthony Fauci and Ralph Baric’s evil stepchild, Imperial College, the criminal conspirators who came up with the fear porn of how many people were going to die, IHME, the University of Washington program, but the one I want to bring your attention to is the one at the bottom, Erasmus Medical Center.
“Bart Haagmans…In 2002,Bart Haagmans was an interesting dude, because he actually figured out a way to build a bunch of patents around the vaccines for the coronavirus. Mysteriously, the European Union in 2012 started giving him massive, massive grants to run a thing called Zapi.
“And Zapi was the zoonotic disease transmission laboratory for the European Union. And Bart seemed to always get the money. Now, this is fascinating because Bart was also the one who decided to patent MERS. The Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome, remember that one? The one that never really happened but kinda happened in 2012-13? Bart was the one that patented MERS…
“Erasmus Medical Center, actually, in their public statement, when they were confronted with the lie, where they said that they hadn’t filed a patent on the actual genome – kinda like the CDC said in 2007 – when confronted with the lie, they said in public – and you can’t make this sh!t up, People, it’s so funny! They said, ‘Well, what we said was not entirely false in all jurisdictions in the world.’
THE COVID ORCHESTRA
“But this, Ladies and Gentlemen is the slide you wanted to see. This is actually the names and faces of the people who are, in fact killing humanity. And that’s ALL of them. Now, here’s the bad news: There’s a lot of people on that slide, aren’t there? Here’s the better news…I’ll actually give you all this slide, because why not? Lets make sure that we don’t ever forget the names and the faces of the people who decided to kill us…”
David continues, “I want you to have some looks on there. Some are kind of interesting, like cellist Yo-Yo Ma. Did you hear me say that? Cellist, Yo-Yo Ma.
“How about the head of the Wellcome Trust? Not surprising, there, right? How about Princess Rania of Jordan? Ooh, that’s weird.
“How about the woman who happens to be sitting at the helm of the leadership of the government of Canada but conveniently out of sight but running 100% of the money for the government of Canada.
“How about all of these interesting people like, Jim Hagemann Snabe, how about Zhu Min, Chairman of the National Institute of Financial Research in China?
“And what makes these individuals interesting is that when you look at them, you find out something very important. Almost none of them have sought public visibility. Isn’t that funny? Which makes me pick on one of them. The guy I have here, at the bottom corner. And I have to give him credit. He has done so much to stay out of sight.
“I’ve got 12 minutes left. I’ve got to spend a couple of minutes on the guy who’s paid every search engine optimization to keep his name out of search engines and I’m doing it so that is costs him sh!tloads to keep all of you silent.
DUSTIN MOSKOVITZ: EDITING THE HUMAN GENOME
“So let’s get really clear on Dustin Moskovitz. Shall we, Dustin Moskovitz?…You little piece of sh!t! Let’s talk about him for a minute. The Co-Founder of Facebook that you’ve never heard of…also the guy who founded Open Philanthropy, who was the actual check-writer for Event201. You were told that it was the World Economic Forum. You were told it was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. You were told it was Johns Hopkins University. But the actual check that cleared for the program was signed by none other than Dustin Moskovitz…
“Now, I’m picking on him for a good reason. He’s a felon, he’s a criminal. He is one of the most sociopathic, psychopathic, crazy people walking the planet and he’s paid to keep his name in private. So guess what? Don’t let him! The reason why I want to give you this slide is because I want every one of them named. I want them all publicly named.
“Because it’s time that we start going through the reality of saying, ‘We the People are not going to let mass-murderers get away anonymously mass-murdering people. We are not going to allow that to happen! Not on our watch! And that’s why you have this slide…
“But let’s go back to Dustin. Isn’t it interesting that Dustin conveniently decided to shroud this entire public health crisis in a self-serving, self-interested investment objective? He owns Sherlock biosciences. Sherlock Bioscienceshappens to be the company that owns the CRISPR technology that is the joint venture between the United States and China on gene editing the human genome…
“Dustin Moskovitz knew that if he actually tried to take this technology into the public, nobody would be willing to do it, particularly, given the fact that it’s a JV [joint venture] between him and the government of China. That’s the reason why we’d have a problem with it. Because it feels like eugenics. You know why it feels like eugenics? Because it iseugenics, that’s why it feels like it! That’s why it feels like Cold Spring Harbor Labs…
“The only way we could get gene editing technology approved was with an Emergency Use Authorization. Not surprisingly, once everybody was distracted on vaccines and everybody was distracted on RTPCR and everybody was distracted on everything else, Sherlock Biosciences slipped their Emergency Use Authorization application into the FDA – and got it. In other words, using the cover of COVID, which all of us are pretending to talk about, the editing of the human genome was approved and not one of us said a thing.
“Now, if you were going to edit the human genome, do you think you’d need a good cover story to actually hide what you’re really doing? You’d probably find the guy who has the biggest financial interest in doing it and make sure, that while everyone is looking over at coronavirus and COVID and trying to figure out these Lab Leak Hypothesis – there’s no Lab Leak Hypothesis, because there’s no lab leak!
“So stop taking about lab leaks! there is no lab leak. This is the willful weaponization of a spike protein, that’s what it is. It’s an act of war, it’s not a leak. We need to start calling it what it is. It’s an act of war. It’s an act of war against humanity.
“We stop pretending to take their bait and follow their stupid rabbit trails and follow stupid rabbit trails into stupid rabbit holes and wonder why there’s a bunch of pee and piss and poo that smells like rabbit warrens. Well, it smells like it because that’s what you find at the end of a rabbit trail.
“We need to be focused on the point and people like Dustin Moskovitz and this slide is going to be shared with everyone in this room, because it is incumbent on you. Now you know. Now you must act. Because when we talk about the ‘they’, we empower the ‘they’.
“But when we talk about the names of people, we humanize the sociopathic behavior. We humanize the fact that there are individuals and organizations that are willfully murdering the humanity that we know and love and we cannot let that hapen on our watch. It is incumbent on all us to get those words out.”
Watch the full presentation below:
THE COVID CONSPIRING STATES
The next slide shows the countries of the US, Canada, UK, Germany, South Africa, China and Australia and the logos of the following corporations: BlackRock, AXA, HSBC, International Monetary Fund, United Healthcare, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
David says, “The most important part of this slide is what I put in the Atlantic Ocean, because the real nation-state isn’t a nation-state. Listen!…The Treaty of Westphalia, the stupid idea of drawing lines on maps and calling them countries has long been dead.
“The real control is that,” (points to the slide), “what I call the ‘Atlantic Coalition of Doom.’ The Atlantic Coalition of Doom: BlackRock, AXA, the International Monetary Fund, HSBC, ICBC and you guessed it, United Healthcare…
“United Healthcare is a corrupt organization. It is a corrupt organization. It must be called what it is. It is actually the most manipulative corporate structures known to humanity, because what it does is it matches life insurance and insurance products with the delivery of healthcare, so they can so what? Manage your health? Oh-ho-ho no! Bet against the timing of your death.
“That’s the internal arbitrage. It is the wet dream of the Lloyd’s of London syndicate. They would have loved to have had this opportunity. But guess what? They didn’t. United Healthcare did. They put two things together, which means they get to manage your life so they can time your death, so they can profit on both.”
According to MintPress News, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated at least $319 million to fund media projects at hundreds of organizations including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic, raising questions about those news outlets’ ability to report objectively on Gates and his work.
Up until his recent messy divorce, Bill Gates enjoyed something of a free pass in corporate media. Generally presented as a kindly nerd who wants to save the world, the Microsoft co-founder was even unironically christened “Saint Bill” by The Guardian.
While other billionaires’ media empires are relatively well known, the extent to which Gates’s cash underwrites the modern media landscape is not. After sorting through over 30,000 individual grants, MintPress can reveal that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has made over $300 million worth of donations to fund media projects.
Recipients of this cash include many of America’s most important news outlets, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic.
Gates also sponsors a myriad of influential foreign organizations, including the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph in the UK; prominent European newspapers such as Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain); as well as big global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.
The Gates Foundation money going towards media programs has been split up into a number of sections, presented in descending numerical order, and includes a link to the relevant grant on the organization’s website.
Together, these donations total $166,216,526. The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gates’ hearts.
For example, the $3.6 million CNN grant went towards “report[ing] on gender equality with a particular focus on least developed countries, producing journalism on the everyday inequalities endured by women and girls across the world,” while the Texas Tribune received millions to “to increase public awareness and engagement of education reform issues in Texas.”
Given that Bill is one of the charter schools’ most fervent supporters, a cynic might interpret this as planting pro-corporate charter school propaganda into the media, disguised as objective news reporting.
The Gates Foundation has also given nearly $63 million to charities closely aligned with big mediaoutlets, including nearly $53 million to BBC Media Action, over $9 million to MTV’s Staying Alive Foundation and $1 million to The New York Times Neediest Causes Fund.
While not specifically funding journalism, donations to the philanthropic arm of a media player should still be noted.
Gates continues to underwrite a wide network of investigative journalism centers as well, totaling just over $38 million, more than half of which has gone to the D.C.-based International Center for Journalists to expand and develop African media.
The Poynter Institute for Media Studies — $382,997.
Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) — $360,211.
Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies — $254,500.
Global Forum for Media Development (Belgium) — $124,823.
Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting — $100,000.
In addition to this, the Gates Foundation also plies press and journalism associations with cash, to the tune of at least $12 million. For example, the National Newspaper Publishers Association — a group representing more than 200 outlets — has received $3.2 million.
American Society of News Editors Foundation — $250,000.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — $25,000.
This brings our running total up to $216.4 million.
The foundation also puts up the money to directly train journalists all over the world, in the form of scholarships, courses and workshops.
Today, it is possible for an individual to train as a reporter thanks to a Gates Foundation grant, find work at a Gates-funded outlet, and to belong to a press association funded by Gates.
This is especially true of journalists working in the fields of health, education and global development, the ones Gates himself is most active in and where scrutiny of the billionaire’s actions and motives are most necessary.
Gates Foundation grants pertaining to the instruction of journalists include:
The BMGF also pays for a wide range of specific media campaigns around the world. For example, since 2014 it has donated $5.7 million to the Population Foundation of India in order to create dramas that promote sexual and reproductive health, with the intent to increase family planning methods in South Asia.
Meanwhile, it alloted over $3.5 million to a Senegalese organization to develop radio shows and online content that would feature health information.
Supporters consider this to be helping critically underfunded media, while opponents might consider it a case of a billionaire using his money to plant his ideas and opinions into the press.
Added together, these Gates-sponsored media projects come to a total of $319.4 million.
However, there are clear shortcomings with this non-exhaustive list, meaning the true figure is undoubtedly far higher. First, it does not count sub-grants — money given by recipients to media around the world.
And while the Gates Foundation fosters an air of openness about itself, there is actually precious little public information about what happens to the money from each grant, save for a short, one- or two-sentence description written by the foundation itself on its website.
Only donations to press organizations themselves or projects that could be identified from the information on the Gates Foundation’s website as media campaigns were counted, meaning that thousands of grants having some media element do not appear in this list.
A case in point is the BMGF’s partnership with ViacomCBS, the company that controls CBS News, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and BET. Media reports at the time noted that the Gates Foundation was paying the entertainment giant to insert information and PSAs into its programming and that Gates had intervened to change storylines in popular shows like ER and Law & Order: SVU.
However, when checking BMGF’s grants database, “Viacom” and “CBS” are nowhere to be found, the likely grant in question (totaling over $6 million) merely describing the project as a “public engagement campaign aimed at improving high school graduation rates and postsecondary completion rates specifically aimed at parents and students,” meaning that it was not counted in the official total.
There are surely many more examples like this. “For a tax-privileged charity that so very often trumpets the importance of transparency, it’s remarkable how intensely secretive the Gates Foundation is about its financial flows,” Tim Schwab, one of the few investigative journalists who has scrutinized the tech billionaire, told MintPress.
Also not included are grants aimed at producing articles for academic journals. While these articles are not meant for mass consumption, they regularly form the basis for stories in the mainstream press and help shape narratives around key issues.
The Gates Foundation has given far and wide to academic sources, with at least $13.6 milliongoing toward creating content for the prestigious medical journal The Lancet.
And, of course, even money given to universities for purely research projects eventually ends up in academic journals, and ultimately, downstream into mass media. Academics are under heavy pressure to print their results in prestigious journals; “publish or perish” is the mantra in university departments.
Therefore, even these sorts of grants have an effect on our media. Neither these nor grants funding the printing of books or establishment of websites counted in the total, although they too are forms of media.
Low Profile, Long Tentacles
In comparison to other tech billionaires, Gates has kept his profile as a media controller relatively low. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s purchase of The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013 was a very clear and obvious form of media influence, as was eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s creation of First Look Media, the company that owns The Intercept.
Despite flying more under the radar, Gates and his companies have amassed considerable influence in media.
We already rely on Microsoft-owned products for communication (e.g., Skype, Hotmail), social media (LinkedIn), and entertainment (Microsoft XBox). Furthermore, the hardware and software we use to communicate often comes courtesy of the 66-year-old Seattleite.
How many people reading this are doing so on a Microsoft Surface or Windows phone and doing so via Windows OS? Not only that, Microsoft owns stakes in media giants such as Comcast and AT&T. And the “MS” in MSNBC stands for Microsoft.
Media Gates Keepers
That the Gates Foundation is underwriting a significant chunk of our media ecosystem leads to serious problems with objectivity. “The foundation’s grants to media organizations … raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?” wrote Gates’s local Seattle Times in 2011.
This was before the newspaper accepted BMGF money to fund its “education lab” section.
Schwab’s research has found that this conflict of interests goes right to the very top: two New York Times columnists had been writing glowingly about the Gates Foundation for years without disclosing that they also work for a group — the Solutions Journalism Network — that, as shown above, has received over $7 million from the tech billionaire’s charity.
Earlier this year, Schwab also declined to co-report on a story about COVAX for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, suspecting that the money Gates had been pumping into the outlet would make it impossible to accurately report on a subject so close to Gates’s heart.
Sure enough, when the article was published last month, it repeated the assertion that Gates had little to do with COVAX’s failure, mirroring the BMGF’s stance and quoting them throughout. Only at the very end of the more than 5,000-word story did it reveal that the organization it was defending was paying the wages of its staff.
“I don’t believe Gates told The Bureau of Investigative Journalism what to write. I think the bureau implicitly, if subconsciously, knew they had to find a way to tell this story that didn’t target their funder.
The biasing effects of financial conflicts are complex but very real and reliable,” Schwab said, describing it as “a case study in the perils of Gates-funded journalism.”
MintPress also contacted the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for comment, but it did not respond.
Gates, who amassed his fortune by building a monopoly and zealously guarding his intellectual property, bears significant blame for the failure of the coronavirus vaccine rollout across the world.
Quite aside from the COVAX fiasco, he pressured Oxford University not to make its publicly-funded vaccine open-source and available to all for free, but instead to partner with private corporation AstraZeneca, a decision that meant that those who could not pay were blocked from using it.
That Gates has made over 100 donations to the university, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, likely played some role in the decision. To this day, fewer than 5% of people in low-income countries have received even one dose of COVID vaccine. The death toll from this is immense.
Unfortunately, many of these real criticisms of Gates and his network are obscured by wild and untrue conspiracy theories about such things as inserting microchips in vaccines to control the population.
This has meant that genuine critiques of the Microsoft co-founder are often demonetized and algorithmically suppressed, meaning that outlets are strongly dissuaded from covering the topic, knowing they will likely lose money if they do so. The paucity of scrutiny of the world’s second-richest individual, in turn, feeds into outlandish suspicions.
Gates certainly deserves it. Quite apart from his deep and potentially decades-long ties to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein, his attempts to radically change African society, and his investment in controversial chemical giant Monsanto, he is perhaps the key driver behind the American charter school movement — an attempt to essentially privatize the U.S. education system.
Charter schools are deeply unpopular with teachers’ unions, which see the movement as an attempt to lessen their autonomy and reduce public oversight into how and what children are taught.
All the way to the bank
In most coverage, Gates’s donations are broadly presented as altruistic gestures. Yet many have pointed to the inherent flaws with this model, noting that allowing billionaires to decide what they do with their money allows them to set the public agenda, giving them enormous power over society.
“Philanthropy can and is being used deliberately to divert attention away from different forms of economic exploitation that underpin global inequality today,” saidLinsey McGoey, Professor of Sociology at the University of Essex, U.K., and author of “No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy.” She adds:
“The new ‘philanthrocapitalism’ threatens democracy by increasing the power of the corporate sector at the expense of the public sector organizations, which increasingly face budget squeezes, in part by excessively remunerating for-profit organizations to deliver public services that could be delivered more cheaply without private sector involvement.”
Charity, as former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee noted, “is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.”
None of this means that the organizations receiving Gates’ money — media or otherwise — are irredeemably corrupt, nor that the Gates Foundation does not do any good in the world.
But it does introduce a glaring conflict of interest whereby the very institutions we rely on to hold accountable one of the richest and most powerful men in the planet’s history are quietly being funded by him.
This conflict of interest is one that corporate media have largely tried to ignore, while the supposedly altruistic philanthropist Gates just keeps getting richer, laughing all the way to the bank.
There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions which in the course of the last 18 months are literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide.
“Fake science” is used to justify confinement, social distancing, the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings, cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, all of which are upheld as a means to repealing the “killer virus”.
Who is this “Killer Virus” which has been personified by both the media and our governments, held responsible for triggering economic and social chaos Worldwide?
You might recall that at the height of the February 2020 financial collapse, “V the Virus” was held responsible for the largest stock market crash since 1929.
Has the “Killer Virus” been Identified. Has SARS-CoV-2 been Isolated?
This article will review this contentious issue starting at the outset of the crisis in January 2020. Part of this analysis is based on research conducted in early 2020.
The central question raised in this review is the following: is there reliable evidence provided by the WHO and national health authorities that the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated/purified from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?
While the alleged virus was initially defined as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in January 2020 that it did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation/purification and identity of 2019-nCoV.
And because details concerning isolation / purification were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Test using the alleged “similar” 2003 SARS virus (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the novel 2019-nCoV.
What this decision entails is that novel 2019-CoV-2 is NOT a novel virus. It was categorized by the Chinese authorities and the WHO as “similar” to the 2003 SARS-CoV as well as to MERS.
2003 SARS-CoV was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1.
History: Isolation of the Virus
Chinese Health Authorities
The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that “a new type of virus” had been identified “similar to the one associated with SARS and MERS” (related report , not original Chinese government source). The underlying method is described below:
We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing.
Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. (emphasis added)
The following article entitled “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China, (Nature, February 3, 2021) was among the first to report on the China’s novel coronavirus:…[We] collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described 4,6,7,8. .In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. ….The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. .The viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119)  and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933) . (Nature, February 3, 2020) .
It is unclear from the above quotations as well as from the documents consulted, whether the Chinese health authorities undertook an isolation / purification of a patient’s specimen.
US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Following the Chinese announcement on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.The CDC statement dated January 28th, 2020 (updated December 2020) is unequivocal:
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.
On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.
On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.
An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.
One important way that CDC has supported global efforts to study and learn about SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory was by growing the virus in cell culture and ensuring that it was widely available. Researchers in the scientific and medical community can use virus obtained from this work in their studies.
SARS-CoV-2 strains supplied by CDC and other researchers can be requested, free, from the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research (BEI) Resources Repositoryexternal icon by established institutions that meet BEI requirements. These requirements include maintaining appropriate facilities and safety programs, as well as having the appropriate expertise. BEI supplies organisms and reagents to the broader community of microbiology and infectious disease researchers. (Emphasis added).
See also related study which was posted on the CDC website.
The CDC Acknowledges that SARS-CoV-2 has not been Isolated.
The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. (emphasis added, page 40)
Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:
On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
See the analysis of CDC responses in the section below on Freedom of Information Requests.
The World Health Organization (WHO) Did Not Undertake The Isolation / Purification of a Specimen
From the documents quoted below, the Chinese authorities did not provide the WHO with a specimen ofisolated / purified SARS-CoV-2.
And because details concerning isolation were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” its Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test using a so-called isolate of the “similar” 2003 SARS corona virus (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1) as “a point of reference” (or proxy) for detecting genetic fragments of the 2019 SARS-CoV-2.
While Drosten et al’s study confirmed that “several viral genome sequences had been released”, in the case of 2019-nCoV, “virus isolates or samples from infected patients were not available … ”
The recommendations to the WHO were as follows:
“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV,a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].
We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.” (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).
What this bold statement suggests is that the isolation / purification of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “validation” would be enabled by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003-SARS-CoV.”
The investigative report provides detailed documentation based on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests addressed to ninety Health /Science institutions in a large number of countries.
The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation / purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.”
“The 90 Health /Science institutions that have responded thus far have provided and/or cited, in total, zero such records:
Our requests [under “freedom of information”] have not been limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records describing “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”) isolation/purification performed by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet.”
The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
The CDC was contacted by the author of this report in the form of four separate requests: November 2, 2020, March 1, 2021, March 3, 2021, which are reviewed below:
March 1, 2021:The CDC again made clear that they still have no records of “SARS-COV-2” isolation performed by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever… just not in so many words. Instead, the CDC absurdly implied that isolation/purification of “SARS-COV-2” would require the replication of a “virus” without host cells and thus is impossible. (The request had nothing to do with replication.)
CDC again failed to provide/cite any records describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification by anyone anywhere ever… but would no longer simply say so (as they did on November 2nd); instead they gave song and dance citing the study by Harcourt et al. which is the same one posted on CDC’s website:
Here are 5 compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79 institutions in 22 countries/jurisdictions, re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails from authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an email from the Head of the Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s Robert Koch Institut, last updated July 13, 2021
Screenshot of a selected responses are provided below : New Zealand, Canada, UK.
Consult the full archive of letters and responses. This work was undertaken over a period of more than 12 months.
“Gemma O’Doherty is an Investigative Journalist in Ireland.
“This Irish Investigation into Covid shows that The Department of Health refuses to confirm the existence of a “virus” in writing. Confirmation that the virus was never isolated.”
“As part of our legal action we had been demanding the evidence that this virus actually exists [as well as] evidence that lock downs actually have any impact on the spread of viruses; that face-masks are safe, and do deter the spread of viruses – They don’t. No such studies exist; that social distancing is based in science – It isn’t. it’s made up; that contact tracing has any bearing on the spread of a virus – of course it doesn’t. This organization here – is making it up as they go along.” – Gemma O’Doherty
Isolation of the Virus. The Legal Battle in Alberta. Patrick King
Patrick King. The Virus Has Not Been Isolated! “No I Did Not Win The Court Case”. “They Do Not Have the Evidence”.
The following video features Patrick King in his legal Battle against the Alberta Government. There are a lot of people in Alberta and around the World who are Fighting against the Big Lie.
Concluding Remarks: “Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”
SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated. Does the virus Exist?
Neither the Chinese authorities nor the CDC, the WHO, national governments, scientific / health authorities have provided evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated /purified.
Based on the investigative research of Christine Malley we have access to the responses of numerous governments and health authorities, including that provided by the Republic of Ireland to journalist Gemma O’Doherty.
What this means is that the entire covid narrative falls flat.
We have been systematically misled.
Everything you have been told by your governments is a lie, a complexity of lies and falsehoods.
There is no pandemic. The isolation / purification of the virus has not been undertaken.
All the policies adopted by governments worldwide allegedly to “save lives” are illegal, socially destructive and in violation of fundamental human rights.
These policies have been instrumental in “destroying people’s lives”.
Dr. Stephen Frost refers to the alleged “Covid pandemic” as“The Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”.
From the outset in January 2020, the flawed and invalid RT-PCR test was used to “detect” the alleged 2019 SARS-CoV-2 virus, despite the fact that details regarding the isolation/purification of the original virus were not available.
Curbing the alleged SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through the imposition of face masks, social distancing, closing down of national economies are of a criminal nature, they have absolutely no validity,
The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 has not be isolated /purified: How does that affect the process of so-called “detection” of the “deadly variants” of the original virus?
Mortality and Morbidity: While there is “No Killer Virus”, there is a “Killer Vaccine”.
While the SARS-CoV-2 virus is presented by the media and the governments as a “killer virus” (when in fact the WHO and CDC describe it as “similar to seasonal influenza”, a totally invalid and dysfunctional Covid -19 vaccine is currently being imposed on the entire population of Planet Earth: 7.9 billion people.
It’s a multibillion dollar endeavour with Pfizer in the lead, establishing a near Worldwide monopoly for the sale and distribution of the mRNA killer vaccine.
How did Big Pharma manage to develop a vaccine (sponsored by the WHO, GAVI, the Gates Foundation, et al) with a mandate “to protect people” against a virus which has not been isolated/ purified?
Moreover, 2019SARS-CoV-2 has been categorized as similar to the 2003 SARS-CoV which means that the 2019 SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel virus.
The legitimacy of the Covid vaccine project hinges upon the hundreds of thousands of RT-PCR fake positive cases Worldwide combined with fake Covid related mortality data.
Big Pharma’s mRNA vaccine has resulted in countless deaths and injuries Worldwide which are barely reported by the mainstream media.
While we do not have figures for the entire Planet, the latest official figures for the European Union and the U.S are revealing. Bear in mind they vastly underestimate the real trends in vaccin related mortality and morbidity:EU/EEA/Switzerland to 31 July 2021 – 20,595 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.94 million injuries, per EudraVigilance Database.
UK to 21 July 2021 – 1,517 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.1 million injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.
USA to 23 July 2021 – 11,940 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 2.4 million injuries, per VAERS database.
TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 34,052 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 5.46 million injuries reported as at 1 August 2021
Nota Bene: It is important to be aware that the official figures above (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage of the actual figures. Furthermore, people continue to die (and suffer injury) from the injections with every day which passes. (D4CE
So why are governments pressuring people to get vaccinated?
Heads of State and heads of government Worldwide are being pressured, bribed, coopted and/or threatened by powerful financial interests into accepting the Covid vaccine consensus. The vaccine passport is the endgame, which constitutes a transition towards digital tyranny.
The study and reports analyzed in this article should be used to confront politicians.
Does the virus Exist?
The governments and the WHO do not have a Leg to Stand On. And neither does Bill Gates.
What we must seek is to confront a very fragile consensus, which is based on fraud and deceit.
PS: I remain indebted to Christine Massey for her extensive research and investigation on the issue of isolation /purification.
Wikipedia fails to reflect relevant viewpoints on hot-button topics and describes center-left establishment worldviews, its co-founder Larry Sanger said. This consensus reality is prone to nefarious manipulation by powers that be.
“There is a big nasty complex game being played behind the scenes to make the articles say what somebody wants them to say,” Sanger said this week, blasting the current community culture at Wikipedia. “There are all kinds of tricks that people can play to ‘win’ it.”
Sanger, who launched – along with Jimmy Wales – the world’s premier website for reference materials, has become a vocal critic of his brainchild. He jokingly called himself “ex-founder,” referring to both his criticism and Wikipedia’s attempts to distance itself from his person.
This week he talked about what he sees as a problematic change in the online encyclopedia to Freddie Sayers, the host of UnHerd magazine’s show Lockdown TV.
Today, Wikipedia is a “pretty reliable establishment in its viewpoint, whatever the viewpoint is,” he said.
This is ironic, he added, considering that the website was founded by “a couple of libertarians, who at least in the beginning were really tolerant and open to all sorts of anti-establishment views being canvassed within the articles.”
The user-edited encyclopedia was supposed to lay out known facts and prominent points of view on how to interpret them. But on “hot-button topics,” whether political or cultural, it is now clearly pushing the viewpoint of the center-left, obfuscating and downplaying the opinions of other groups, Sanger said.
This approach is inherently flawed because it denies people the right to make informed decisions in life.
“We do not want to be led by the nose. We, being free individuals, want to make up our minds. And if we don’t then there is something wrong with us, I think,” he explained.
Of course, there are people who want to be told what they should think by some authority figure, be it a religious leader, party officials or some dictator. And a resource that caters to such urges does a disservice, Sanger argued.
The word for it is ‘propaganda’ when it’s systematic. And that’s what we are really dealing with on Wikipedia.
Such a resource also becomes a useful tool for those who want to manipulate public perceptions of reality to their own benefit.
There is an entire industry that monitors Wikipedia pages relevant to their clients and pushes forward edits on their behalf. Some of it goes under the radar, since Wikipedia editors are not obliged to identify themselves and disclose conflicts of interests.
“If only one version of facts is allowed, then it gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control over things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that,” Sanger pointed out.
Part of the problem is in Wikipedia’s deliberate reliance on secondary sources, which are mostly media reports, to back article contents. Those sources can be biased themselves, and the Wikipedia editor community grandfathers those biases by excluding some outlets like the Daily Mail or Fox News as valid references. Increasing polarization of the media further exacerbated the problem.
The result is that now, “if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia,” Sanger said.
Joe Biden’s page barely mentions the controversy involving Ukraine and his son Hunter’s sinecure job there, and does so to dismiss it as a manufactured political attack against the incumbent US president.
Sanger believes it is impossible to have an encyclopedia that lists universally accepted facts of life and that honestly reflecting existing divisions and debates is the best thing one can hope for.
“You cannot have an ‘encyclopedia of fact’ if by ‘fact’ you mean something that all responsible researchers on a topic agree to, because it’s often the case that there is disagreement among experts on all kinds of things,” he said.
The problem with ‘consensus reality’ on Wikipedia goes far beyond political issues. Topics like eastern medicine (which the site dismisses as ‘quackery’), Christianity (which Wikipedia describes from a liberal academic point of view) or Covid-19 are all affected by it, Sanger explained. The latter is a good example of how the website joined in with the larger Big Tech drive to silence voices that the establishment deemed undesirable in public discourse.
“There are a lot of Nobel Prize winners, distinguished doctors and so forth, whose views are not only not welcomed on Wikipedia, they are literally censored on YouTube and Facebook and Twitter, where videos of interviews made with such people are removed, because they directly contradict the narrative,” he said.
Silicon Valley censorship is disconcerting, Sanger said, adding that he believes a government-enforced neutrality in online platforms would have been a more chilling alternative, since it would amount to government censorship.
Some might argue that governments simply outsource their censorship to private companies, which are not subject to free speech restrictions like the First Amendment.
This week the White House acknowledged it was flagging “problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”
Sanger hopes that a drive to decentralize the internet, bringing it closer to the free spirit of the ‘Wild West’ days of the web, would help counter this push to gag dissent.
A few years ago he proposed a ‘Declaration of Digital Independence,’ which would give internet users a set of rights for free speech, privacy and security and would rein in the corporate control of online public spaces.
How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up
BY CARL BERNSTEIN
In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.
Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.
WORKING PRESS — CIA STYLETo understand the role of most journalist‑operatives, it is necessary to dismiss some myths about undercover work for American intelligence services. Few American agents are “spies” in the popularly accepted sense of the term. “Spying” — the acquisition of secrets from a foreign government—is almost always done by foreign nationals who have been recruited by the CIA and are under CIA control in their own countries. Thus the primary role of an American working undercover abroad is often to aid in the recruitment and “handling” of foreign nationals who are channels of secret information reaching American intelligence.Many journalists were used by the CIA to assist in this process and they had the reputation of being among the best in the business. The peculiar nature of the job of the foreign correspondent is ideal for such work: he is accorded unusual access by his host country, permitted to travel in areas often off‑limits to other Americans, spends much of his time cultivating sources in governments, academic institutions, the military establishment and the scientific communities. He has the opportunity to form long‑term personal relationships with sources and—perhaps more than any other category of American operative—is in a position to make correct judgments about the susceptibility and availability of foreign nationals for recruitment as spies.“After a foreigner is recruited, a case officer often has to stay in the background,” explained a CIA official. “So you use a journalist to carry messages to and from both parties”Journalists in the field generally took their assignments in the same manner as any other undercover operative. If, for instance, a journalist was based in Austria, he ordinarily would be under the general direction of the Vienna station chief and report to a case officer. Some, particularly roving correspondents or U.S.‑based reporters who made frequent trips abroad, reported directly to CIA officials in Langley, Virginia.The tasks they performed sometimes consisted of little more than serving as “eyes and ears” for the CIA; reporting on what they had seen or overheard in an Eastern European factory, at a diplomatic reception in Bonn, on the perimeter of a military base in Portugal. On other occasions, their assignments were more complex: planting subtly concocted pieces of misinformation; hosting parties or receptions designed to bring together American agents and foreign spies; serving up “black” propaganda to leading foreign journalists at lunch or dinner; providing their hotel rooms or bureau offices as “drops” for highly sensitive information moving to and from foreign agents; conveying instructions and dollars to CIA controlled members of foreign governments.Often the CIA’s relationship with a journalist might begin informally with a lunch, a drink, a casual exchange of information. An Agency official might then offer a favor—for example, a trip to a country difficult to reach; in return, he would seek nothing more than the opportunity to debrief the reporter afterward. A few more lunches, a few more favors, and only then might there be a mention of a formal arrangement — “That came later,” said a CIA official, “after you had the journalist on a string.”Another official described a typical example of the way accredited journalists (either paid or unpaid by the CIA) might be used by the Agency: “In return for our giving them information, we’d ask them to do things that fit their roles as journalists but that they wouldn’t have thought of unless we put it in their minds. For instance, a reporter in Vienna would say to our man, ‘I met an interesting second secretary at the Czech Embassy.’ We’d say, ‘Can you get to know him? And after you get to know him, can you assess him? And then, can you put him in touch with us—would you mind us using your apartment?”‘Formal recruitment of reporters was generally handled at high levels—after the journalist had undergone a thorough background check. The actual approach might even be made by a deputy director or division chief. On some occasions, no discussion would he entered into until the journalist had signed a pledge of secrecy.“The secrecy agreement was the sort of ritual that got you into the tabernacle,” said a former assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence. “After that you had to play by the rules.” David Attlee Phillips, former Western Hemisphere chief of clandestine services and a former journalist himself, estimated in an interview that at least 200 journalists signed secrecy agreements or employment contracts with the Agency in the past twenty‑five years. Phillips, who owned a small English‑language newspaper in Santiago, Chile, when he was recruited by the CIA in 1950, described the approach: “Somebody from the Agency says, ‘I want you to help me. 1 know you are a true‑blue American, but I want you to sign a piece of paper before I tell you what it’s about.’ I didn’t hesitate to sign, and a lot of newsmen didn’t hesitate over the next twenty years.”“One of the things we always had going for us in terms of enticing reporters,” observed a CIA official who coordinated some of the arrangements with journalists, “was that we could make them look better with their home offices. A foreign correspondent with ties to the Company [the CIA] stood a much better chance than his competitors of getting the good stories.”Within the CIA, journalist‑operatives were accorded elite status, a consequence of the common experience journalists shared with high‑level CIA officials. Many had gone to the same schools as their CIA handlers, moved in the same circles, shared fashionably liberal, anti‑Communist political values, and were part of the same “old boy” network that constituted something of an establishment elite in the media, politics and academia of postwar America. The most valued of these lent themselves for reasons of national service, not money.The Agency’s use of journalists in undercover operations has been most extensive in Western Europe (“That was the big focus, where the threat was,” said one CIA official), Latin America and the Far East. In the 1950s and 1960s journalists were used as intermediaries—spotting, paying, passing instructions—to members of the Christian Democratic party in Italy and the Social Democrats in Germany, both of which covertly received millions of dollars from the CIA. During those years “we had journalists all over Berlin and Vienna just to keep track of who the hell was coming in from the East and what they were up to,” explained a CIA official.In the Sixties, reporters were used extensively in the CIA offensive against Salvador Allende in Chile; they provided funds to Allende’s opponents and wrote anti‑Allende propaganda for CIA proprietary publications that were distributed in Chile. (CIA officials insist that they make no attempt to influence the content of American newspapers, but some fallout is inevitable: during the Chilean offensive, CIA‑generated black propaganda transmitted on the wire service out of Santiago often turned up in American publications.)According to CIA officials, the Agency has been particularly sparing in its use of journalist agents in Eastern Europe on grounds that exposure might result in diplomatic sanctions against the United States or in permanent prohibitions against American correspondents serving in some countries. The same officials claim that their use of journalists in the Soviet Union has been even more limited, but they remain extremely guarded in discussing the subject. They are insistent, however, in maintaining that the Moscow correspondents of major news organizations have not been “tasked” or controlled by the Agency.The Soviets, according to CIA officials, have consistently raised false charges of CIA affiliation against individual American reporters as part of a continuing diplomatic game that often follows the ups and downs of Soviet‑American relations. The latest such charge by the Russians—against Christopher Wren of the New York Times and Alfred Friendly Jr., formerly of Newsweek, has no basis in fact, they insist.CIA officials acknowledge, however, that such charges will persist as long as the CIA continues to use journalistic cover and maintain covert affiliations with individuals in the profession. But even an absolute prohibition against Agency use of journalists would not free reporters from suspicion, according to many Agency officials. “Look at the Peace Corps,” said one source. “We have had no affiliation there and they [foreign governments] still throw them out”
The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:
■ The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence‑gathering employed by the CIA. Although the Agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalist‑operatives are still posted abroad.
■ Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950s and 1960s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism.
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.
The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.
The Agency’s special relationships with the so‑called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‑known correspondents in the business.
In the field, journalists were used to help recruit and handle foreigners as agents; to acquire and evaluate information, and to plant false information with officials of foreign governments. Many signed secrecy agreements, pledging never to divulge anything about their dealings with the Agency; some signed employment contracts., some were assigned case officers and treated with. unusual deference. Others had less structured relationships with the Agency, even though they performed similar tasks: they were briefed by CIA personnel before trips abroad, debriefed afterward, and used as intermediaries with foreign agents. Appropriately, the CIA uses the term “reporting” to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?’”.said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right …. Can you set up a meeting for is? Or relay a message?’” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives; the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors—usually without pay—in the national interest.
“I’m proud they asked me and proud to have done it,” said Joseph Alsop who, like his late brother, columnist Stewart Alsop, undertook clandestine tasks for the Agency. “The notion that a newspaperman doesn’t have a duty to his country is perfect balls.”
From the Agency’s perspective, there is nothing untoward in such relationships, and any ethical questions are a matter for the journalistic profession to resolve, not the intelligence community. As Stuart Loory, former Los Angeles Times correspondent, has written in the ColumbiaJournalism Review: ‘If even one American overseas carrying a press card is a paid informer for the CIA, then all Americans with those credentials are suspect …. If the crisis of confidence faced by the news business—along with the government—is to be overcome, journalists must be willing to focus on themselves the same spotlight they so relentlessly train on others!’ But as Loory also noted: “When it was reported… that newsmen themselves were on the payroll of the CIA, the story caused a brief stir, and then was dropped.”
During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency.
THE AGENCY’S DEALINGS WITH THE PRESS BEGAN during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting‑and‑cover capability within America’s most prestigious journalistic institutions. By operating under the guise of accredited news correspondents, Dulles believed, CIA operatives abroad would be accorded a degree of access and freedom of movement unobtainable under almost any other type of cover.
American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing to commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against “global Communism.” Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner, publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements. They were witting.” In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.
In addition to cover capability, Dulles initiated a “debriefing” procedure under which American correspondents returning from abroad routinely emptied their notebooks and offered their impressions to Agency personnel. Such arrangements, continued by Dulles’ successors, to the present day, were made with literally dozens of news organizations. In the 1950s, it was not uncommon for returning reporters to be met at the ship by CIA officers. “There would be these guys from the CIA flashing ID cards and looking like they belonged at the Yale Club,” said Hugh Morrow, a former Saturday Evening Post correspondent who is now press secretary to former vice‑president Nelson Rockefeller. “It got to be so routine that you felt a little miffed if you weren’t asked.”
CIA officials almost always refuse to divulge the names of journalists who have cooperated with the Agency. They say it would be unfair to judge these individuals in a context different from the one that spawned the relationships in the first place. “There was a time when it wasn’t considered a crime to serve your government,” said one high‑level CIA official who makes no secret of his bitterness. “This all has to be considered in the context of the morality of the times, rather than against latter‑day standards—and hypocritical standards at that.”
Many journalists who covered World War II were close to people in the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime predecessor of the CIA; more important, they were all on the same side. When the war ended and many OSS officials went into the CIA, it was only natural that these relationships would continue. Meanwhile, the first postwar generation of journalists entered the profession; they shared the same political and professional values as their mentors. “You had a gang of people who worked together during World War II and never got over it,” said one Agency official. “They were genuinely motivated and highly susceptible to intrigue and being on the inside. Then in the Fifties and Sixties there was a national consensus about a national threat. The Vietnam War tore everything to pieces—shredded the consensus and threw it in the air.” Another Agency official observed: “Many journalists didn’t give a second thought to associating with the Agency. But there was a point when the ethical issues which most people had submerged finally surfaced. Today, a lot of these guys vehemently deny that they had any relationship with the Agency.”
From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings, with full knowledge restricted to the Director of Central Intelligence and a few of his chosen deputies. Dulles and his successors were fearful of what would happen if a journalist‑operative’s cover was blown, or if details of the Agency’s dealings with the press otherwise became public. As a result, contacts with the heads of news organizations were normally initiated by Dulles and succeeding Directors of Central Intelligence; by the deputy directors and division chiefs in charge of covert operations—Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer Jr., Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Tracy Barnes, Thomas Karamessines and Richard Helms himself a former UPI correspondent); and, occasionally, by others in the CIA hierarchy known to have an unusually close social relationship with a particular publisher or broadcast executive.1
James Angleton, who was recently removed as the Agency’s head of counterintelligence operations, ran a completely independent group of journalist‑operatives who performed sensitive and frequently dangerous assignments; little is known about this group for the simple reason that Angleton deliberately kept only the vaguest of files.
The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. “These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told ‘You’re going to he a journalist,’” the CIA official said. Relatively few of the 400‑some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons who were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency.
The Agency’s relationships with journalists, as described in CIA files, include the following general categories:
■ Legitimate, accredited staff members of news organizations—usually reporters. Some were paid; some worked for the Agency on a purely voluntary basis. This group includes many of the best‑known journalists who carried out tasks for the CIA. The files show that the salaries paid to reporters by newspaper and broadcast networks were sometimes supplemented by nominal payments from the CIA, either in the form of retainers, travel expenses or outlays for specific services performed. Almost all the payments were made in cash. The accredited category also includes photographers, administrative personnel of foreign news bureaus and members of broadcast technical crews.)
Two of the Agency’s most valuable personal relationships in the 1960s, according to CIA officials, were with reporters who covered Latin America—Jerry O’Leary of the Washington Star and Hal Hendrix of the Miami News, a Pulitzer Prize winner who became a high official of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. Hendrix was extremely helpful to the Agency in providing information about individuals in Miami’s Cuban exile community. O’Leary was considered a valued asset in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Agency files contain lengthy reports of both men’s activities on behalf of the CIA.
O’Leary maintains that his dealings were limited to the normal give‑and‑take that goes on between reporters abroad and their sources. CIA officials dispute the contention: “There’s no question Jerry reported for us,” said one. “Jerry did assessing and spotting [of prospective agents] but he was better as a reporter for us.” Referring to O’Leary’s denials, the official added: “I don’t know what in the world he’s worried about unless he’s wearing that mantle of integrity the Senate put on you journalists.”
O’Leary attributes the difference of opinion to semantics. “I might call them up and say something like, ‘Papa Doc has the clap, did you know that?’ and they’d put it in the file. I don’t consider that reporting for them…. it’s useful to be friendly to them and, generally, I felt friendly to them. But I think they were more helpful to me than I was to them.” O’Leary took particular exception to being described in the same context as Hendrix. “Hal was really doing work for them,” said O’Leary. “I’m still with the Star. He ended up at ITT.” Hendrix could not be reached for comment. According to Agency officials, neither Hendrix nor O’Leary was paid by the CIA.
■ Stringers2 and freelancers. Most were payrolled by the Agency under standard contractual terms. Their journalistic credentials were often supplied by cooperating news organizations. some filed news stories; others reported only for the CIA. On some occasions, news organizations were not informed by the CIA that their stringers were also working for the Agency.
■ Employees of so‑called CIA “proprietaries.” During the past twenty‑five years, the Agency has secretly bankrolled numerous foreign press services, periodicals and newspapers—both English and foreign language—which provided excellent cover for CIA operatives. One such publication was the Rome Daily American, forty percent of which was owned by the CIA until the 1970s. The Daily American went out of business this year,
■ Editors, publishers and broadcast network executives. The CIAs relationship with most news executives differed fundamentally from those with working reporters and stringers, who were much more subject to direction from the Agency. A few executives—Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times among them—signed secrecy agreements. But such formal understandings were rare: relationships between Agency officials and media executives were usually social—”The P and Q Street axis in Georgetown,” said one source. “You don’t tell Wilharn Paley to sign a piece of paper saying he won’t fink.”
■ Columnists and commentators. There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as “known assets” and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects. Three of the most widely read columnists who maintained such ties with the Agency are C.L. Sulzberger of the New York Times, Joseph Alsop, and the late Stewart Alsop, whose column appeared in the New York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday Evening Post and Newsweek. CIA files contain reports of specific tasks all three undertook. Sulzberger is still regarded as an active asset by the Agency. According to a senior CIA official, “Young Cy Sulzberger had some uses…. He signed a secrecy agreement because we gave him classified information…. There was sharing, give and take. We’d say, ‘Wed like to know this; if we tell you this will it help you get access to so‑and‑so?’ Because of his access in Europe he had an Open Sesame. We’d ask him to just report: ‘What did so‑and‑so say, what did he look like, is he healthy?’ He was very eager, he loved to cooperate.” On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist’s byline in the Times. “Cycame out and said, ‘I’m thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?’” a CIA officer said. “We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it.” Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. “A lot of baloney,” he said.
Sulzberger claims that he was never formally “tasked” by the Agency and that he “would never get caught near the spook business. My relations were totally informal—I had a goodmany friends,” he said. “I’m sure they consider me an asset. They can ask me questions. They find out you’re going to Slobovia and they say, ‘Can we talk to you when you get back?’ … Or they’ll want to know if the head of the Ruritanian government is suffering from psoriasis. But I never took an assignment from one of those guys…. I’ve known Wisner well, and Helms and even McCone [former CIA director John McCone] I used to play golf with. But they’d have had to he awfully subtle to have used me.
Sulzberger says he was asked to sign the secrecy agreement in the 1950s. “A guy came around and said, ‘You are a responsible newsman and we need you to sign this if we are going to show you anything classified.’ I said I didn’t want to get entangled and told them, ‘Go to my uncle [Arthur Hays Sulzberger, then publisher of the New York Times] and if he says to sign it I will.’” His uncle subsequently signed such an agreement, Sulzberger said, and he thinks he did too, though he is unsure. “I don’t know, twenty‑some years is a long time.” He described the whole question as “a bubble in a bathtub.”
Stewart Alsop’s relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger’s. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: “Stew Alsop was a CIA agent.” An equally senior official refused to define Alsop’s relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments—asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.
“Absolute nonsense,” said Joseph Alsop of the notion that his brother was a CIA agent. “I was closer to the Agency than Stew was, though Stew was very close. I dare say he did perform some tasks—he just did the correct thing as an American…. The Founding Fathers [of the CIA] were close personal friends of ours. Dick Bissell [former CIA deputy director] was my oldest friend, from childhood. It was a social thing, my dear fellow. I never received a dollar, I never signed a secrecy agreement. I didn’t have to…. I’ve done things for them when I thought they were the right thing to do. I call it doing my duty as a citizen.
Alsop is willing to discuss on the record only two of the tasks he undertook: a visit to Laos in 1952 at the behest of Frank Wisner, who felt other American reporters were using anti‑American sources about uprisings there; and a visit to the Phillipines in 1953 when the CIA thought his presence there might affect the outcome of an election. “Des FitzGerald urged me to go,” Alsop recalled. “It would be less likely that the election could be stolen [by the opponents of Ramon Magsaysay] if the eyes of the world were on them. I stayed with the ambassador and wrote about what happened.”
Alsop maintains that he was never manipulated by the Agency. “You can’t get entangled so they have leverage on you,” he said. “But what I wrote was true. My view was to get the facts. If someone in the Agency was wrong, I stopped talking to them—they’d given me phony goods.” On one occasion, Alsop said, Richard Helms authorized the head of the Agency’s analytical branch to provide Alsop with information on Soviet military presence along the Chinese border. “The analytical side of the Agency had been dead wrong about the war in Vietnam—they thought it couldn’t be won,” said Alsop. “And they were wrong on the Soviet buildup. I stopped talking to them.” Today, he says, “People in our business would be outraged at the kinds of suggestions that were made to me. They shouldn’t be. The CIA did not open itself at all to people it did not trust. Stew and I were trusted, and I’m proud of it.”
MURKY DETAILS OF CIA RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDIVIDUALS and news organizations began trickling out in 1973 when it was first disclosed that the CIA had, on occasion, employed journalists. Those reports, combined with new information, serve as casebook studies of the Agency’s use of journalists for intelligence purposes. They include:
■ The New York Times. The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.
Sulzberger was especially close to Allen Dulles. “At that level of contact it was the mighty talking to the mighty,” said a high‑level CIA official who was present at some of the discussions. “There was an agreement in principle that, yes indeed, we would help each other. The question of cover came up on several occasions. It was agreed that the actual arrangements would be handled by subordinates…. The mighty didn’t want to know the specifics; they wanted plausible deniability.
A senior CIA official who reviewed a portion of the Agency’s files on journalists for two hours onSeptember 15th, 1977, said he found documentation of five instances in which the Times had provided cover for CIA employees between 1954 and 1962. In each instance he said, the arrangements were handled by executives of the Times; the documents all contained standard Agency language “showing that this had been checked out at higher levels of the New York Times,” said the official. The documents did not mention Sulzberger’s name, however—only those of subordinates whom the official refused to identify.
The CIA employees who received Times credentials posed as stringers for the paper abroad and worked as members of clerical staffs in the Times’ foreign bureaus. Most were American; two or three were foreigners.
CIA officials cite two reasons why the Agency’s working relationship with the Times was closer and more extensive than with any other paper: the fact that the Times maintained the largest foreign news operation in American daily journalism; and the close personal ties between the men who ran both institutions.
Sulzberger informed a number of reporters and editors of his general policy of cooperation with the Agency. “We were in touch with them—they’d talk to us and some cooperated,” said a CIA official. The cooperation usually involved passing on information and “spotting” prospective agents among foreigners.
Arthur Hays Sulzberger signed a secrecy agreement with the CIA in the 1950s, according to CIA officials—a fact confirmed by his nephew, C.L. Sulzberger. However, there are varying interpretations of the purpose of the agreement: C.L. Sulzberger says it represented nothing more than a pledge not to disclose classified information made available to the publisher. That contention is supported by some Agency officials. Others in the Agency maintain that the agreement represented a pledge never to reveal any of the Times’ dealings with the CIA, especially those involving cover. And there are those who note that, because all cover arrangements are classified, a secrecy agreement would automatically apply to them.
Attempts to find out which individuals in the Times organization made the actual arrangements for providing credentials to CIA personnel have been unsuccessful. In a letter to reporter Stuart Loory in 1974, Turner Cadedge, managing editor of the Times from 1951 to 1964, wrote that approaches by the CIA had been rebuffed by the newspaper. “I knew nothing about any involvement with the CIA… of any of our foreign correspondents on the New York Times. I heard many times of overtures to our men by the CIA, seeking to use their privileges, contacts, immunities and, shall we say, superior intelligence in the sordid business of spying and informing. If any one of them succumbed to the blandishments or cash offers, I was not aware of it. Repeatedly, the CIA and other hush‑hush agencies sought to make arrangements for ‘cooperation’ even with Times management, especially during or soon after World War II, but we always resisted. Our motive was to protect our credibility.”
According to Wayne Phillips, a former Timesreporter, the CIA invoked Arthur Hays Sulzberger’s name when it tried to recruit him as an undercover operative in 1952 while he was studying at Columbia University’s Russian Institute. Phillips said an Agency official told him that the CIA had “a working arrangement” with the publisher in which other reporters abroad had been placed on the Agency’s payroll. Phillips, who remained at the Times until 1961, later obtained CIA documents under the Freedom of Information Act which show that the Agency intended to develop him as a clandestine “asset” for use abroad.
On January 31st, 1976, the Times carried a brief story describing the ClAs attempt to recruit Phillips. It quoted Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the present publisher, as follows: “I never heard of the Times being approached, either in my capacity as publisher or as the son of the late Mr. Sulzberger.” The Times story, written by John M. Crewdson, also reported that Arthur Hays Sulzberger told an unnamed former correspondent that he might he approached by the CIA after arriving at a new post abroad. Sulzberger told him that he was not “under any obligation to agree,” the story said and that the publisher himself would be “happier” if he refused to cooperate. “But he left it sort of up to me,” the Times quoted its former reporter as saying. “The message was if I really wanted to do that, okay, but he didn’t think it appropriate for a Times correspondent”
C.L. Sulzberger, in a telephone interview, said he had no knowledge of any CIA personnel using Times cover or of reporters for the paper working actively for the Agency. He was the paper’s chief of foreign service from 1944 to 1954 and expressed doubt that his uncle would have approved such arrangements. More typical of the late publisher, said Sulzberger, was a promise made to Allen Dulles’ brother, John Foster, then secretary of state, that no Times staff member would be permitted to accept an invitation to visit the People’s Republic of China without John Foster Dulles’ consent. Such an invitation was extended to the publisher’s nephew in the 1950s; Arthur Sulzberger forbade him to accept it. “It was seventeen years before another Times correspondent was invited,” C.L. Sulzberger recalled.
■ The Columbia Broadcasting System. CBS was unquestionably the CIAs most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS President William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees, including at least one well‑known foreign correspondent and several stringers; it supplied outtakes of newsfilm to the CIA3; established a formal channel of communication between the Washington bureau chief and the Agency; gave the Agency access to the CBS newsfilm library; and allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA. Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings.
The details of the CBS‑CIA arrangements were worked out by subordinates of both Dulles and Paley. “The head of the company doesn’t want to know the fine points, nor does the director,” said a CIA official. “Both designate aides to work that out. It keeps them above the battle.” Dr. Frank Stanton, for 25 years president of the network, was aware of the general arrangements Paley made with Dulles—including those for cover, according to CIA officials. Stanton, in an interview last year, said he could not recall any cover arrangements.) But Paley’s designated contact for the Agency was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News between 1954 and 1961. On one occasion, Mickelson has said, he complained to Stanton about having to use a pay telephone to call the CIA, and Stanton suggested he install a private line, bypassing the CBS switchboard, for the purpose. According to Mickelson, he did so. Mickelson is now president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, both of which were associated with the CIA for many years.
In 1976, CBS News president Richard Salant ordered an in‑house investigation of the network’s dealings with the CIA. Some of its findings were first disclosed by Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times.) But Salant’s report makes no mention of some of his own dealings with the Agency, which continued into the 1970s.
Many details about the CBS‑CIA relationship were found in Mickelson’s files by two investigators for Salant. Among the documents they found was a September 13th, 1957, memo to Mickelson fromTed Koop,CBS News bureau chief in Washington from 1948 to 1961. It describes a phone call to Koop from Colonel Stanley Grogan of the CIA: “Grogan phoned to say that Reeves [J. B. Love Reeves, another CIA official] is going to New York to be in charge of the CIA contact office there and will call to see you and some of your confreres. Grogan says normal activities will continue to channel through the Washington office of CBS News.” The report to Salant also states: “Further investigation of Mickelson’s files reveals some details of the relationship between the CIA and CBS News…. Two key administrators of this relationship were Mickelson and Koop…. The main activity appeared to be the delivery of CBS newsfilm to the CIA…. In addition there is evidence that, during 1964 to 1971, film material, including some outtakes, were supplied by the CBS Newsfilm Library to the CIA through and at the direction of Mr. Koop4…. Notes in Mr. Mickelson’s files indicate that the CIA used CBS films for training… All of the above Mickelson activities were handled on a confidential basis without mentioning the words Central Intelligence Agency. The films were sent to individuals at post‑office box numbers and were paid for by individual, nor government, checks. …” Mickelson also regularly sent the CIA an internal CBS newsletter, according to the report.
Salant’s investigation led him to conclude that Frank Kearns, a CBS‑TV reporter from 1958 to 1971, “was a CIA guy who got on the payroll somehow through a CIA contact with somebody at CBS.” Kearns and Austin Goodrich, a CBS stringer, were undercover CIA employees, hired under arrangements approved by Paley.
Last year a spokesman for Paley denied a report by former CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr that Mickelson and he had discussed Goodrich’s CIA status during a meeting with two Agency representatives in 1954. The spokesman claimed Paley had no knowledge that Goodrich had worked for the CIA. “When I moved into the job I was told by Paley that there was an ongoing relationship with the CIA,” Mickelson said in a recent interview. “He introduced me to two agents who he said would keep in touch. We all discussed the Goodrich situation and film arrangements. I assumed this was a normal relationship at the time. This was at the height of the Cold War and I assumed the communications media were cooperating—though the Goodrich matter was compromising.
At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley’s cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite tile denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant’s investigators. “It wouldn’t do any good,” said one CBS executive. “It is the single subject about which his memory has failed.”
Salant discussed his own contacts with the CIA, and the fact he continued many of his predecessor’s practices, in an interview with this reporter last year. The contacts, he said, began in February 1961, “when I got a phone call from a CIA man who said he had a working relationship with Sig Mickelson. The man said, ‘Your bosses know all about it.'” According to Salant, the CIA representative asked that CBS continue to supply the Agency with unedited newstapes and make its correspondents available for debriefingby Agency officials. Said Salant: “I said no on talking to the reporters, and let them see broadcast tapes, but no outtakes. This went on for a number of years—into the early Seventies.”
In 1964 and 1965, Salant served on a super-secret CIA task force which explored methods of beaming American propaganda broadcasts to the People’s Republic of China. The other members of the four‑man study team were Zbigniew Brzezinski, then a professor at Columbia University; William Griffith, then professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology., and John Haves, then vice‑president of the Washington Post Company for radio‑TV5. The principal government officials associated with the project were Cord Meyer of the CIA; McGeorge Bundy, then special assistant to the president for national security; Leonard Marks, then director of the USIA; and Bill Moyers, then special assistant to President Lyndon Johnson and now a CBS correspondent.
Salant’s involvement in the project began with a call from Leonard Marks, “who told me the White House wanted to form a committee of four people to make a study of U.S. overseas broadcasts behind the Iron Curtain.” When Salant arrived in Washington for the first meeting he was told that the project was CIA sponsored. “Its purpose,” he said, “was to determine how best to set up shortwave broadcasts into Red China.” Accompanied by a CIA officer named Paul Henzie, the committee of four subsequently traveled around the world inspecting facilities run by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty both CIA‑run operations at the time), the Voice of America and Armed Forces Radio. After more than a year of study, they submitted a report to Moyers recommending that the government establish a broadcast service, run by the Voice of America, to be beamed at the People’s Republic of China. Salant has served two tours as head of CBS News, from 1961‑64 and 1966‑present. At the time of the China project he was a CBS corporate executive.)
■ Time and Newsweek magazines. According to CIA and Senate sources, Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly news magazines. The same sources refused to say whether the CIA has ended all its associations with individuals who work for the two publications. Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.
For many years, Luce’s personal emissary to the CIA was C.D. Jackson, a Time Inc., vice‑president who was publisher of Life magazine from 1960 until his death in 1964.While a Time executive, Jackson coauthored a CIA‑sponsored study recommending the reorganization of the American intelligence services in the early 1950s. Jackson, whose Time‑Life service was interrupted by a one‑year White House tour as an assistant to President Dwight Eisenhower, approved specific arrangements for providing CIA employees with Time‑Life cover. Some of these arrangements were made with the knowledge of Luce’s wife, Clare Boothe. Other arrangements for Time cover, according to CIA officials including those who dealt with Luce), were made with the knowledge of Hedley Donovan, now editor‑in‑chief of Time Inc. Donovan, who took over editorial direction of all Time Inc. publications in 1959, denied in a telephone interview that he knew of any such arrangements. “I was never approached and I’d be amazed if Luce approved such arrangements,” Donovan said. “Luce had a very scrupulous regard for the difference between journalism and government.”
In the 1950s and early 1960s, Time magazine’s foreign correspondents attended CIA “briefing” dinners similar to those the CIA held for CBS. And Luce, according to CIA officials, made it a regular practice to brief Dulles or other high Agency officials when he returned from his frequent trips abroad. Luce and the men who ran his magazines in the 1950s and 1960s encouraged their foreign correspondents to provide help to the CIA, particularly information that might be useful to the Agency for intelligence purposes or recruiting foreigners.
At Newsweek, Agency sources reported, the CIA engaged the services of’ several foreign correspondents and stringers under arrangements approved by senior editors at the magazine. Newsweek’s stringer in Rome in the mid‑Fifties made little secret of the fact that he worked for the CIA. Malcolm Muir, Newsweek’s editor from its founding in 1937 until its sale to the Washington Post Company in 1961, said in a recent interview that his dealings with the CIA were limited to private briefings he gave Allen Dulles after trips abroad and arrangements he approved for regular debriefing of Newsweek correspondents by the Agency. He said that he had never provided cover for CIA operatives, but that others high in the Newsweek organization might have done so without his knowledge.
“I would have thought there might have been stringers who were agents, but I didn’t know who they were,” said Muir. “I do think in those days the CIA kept pretty close touch with all responsible reporters. Whenever I heard something that I thought might be of interest to Allen Dulles, I’d call him up…. At one point he appointed one of his CIA men to keep in regular contact with our reporters, a chap that I knew but whose name I can’t remember. I had a number of friends in Alien Dulles’ organization.” Muir said that Harry Kern, Newsweek’s foreign editor from 1945 until 1956, and Ernest K. Lindley, the magazine’s Washington bureau chief during the same period “regularly checked in with various fellows in the CIA.”
“To the best of my knowledge.” said Kern, “nobody at Newsweek worked for the CIA… The informal relationship was there. Why have anybody sign anything? What we knew we told them [the CIA] and the State Department…. When I went to Washington, I would talk to Foster or Allen Dulles about what was going on. … We thought it was admirable at the time. We were all on the same side.” CIA officials say that Kern’s dealings with the Agency were extensive. In 1956, he left Newsweek to run Foreign Reports, a Washington‑based newsletter whose subscribers Kern refuses to identify.
Ernest Lindley, who remained at Newsweek until 1961, said in a recent interview that he regularly consulted with Dulles and other high CIA officials before going abroad and briefed them upon his return. “Allen was very helpful to me and I tried to reciprocate when I could,” he said. “I’d give him my impressions of people I’d met overseas. Once or twice he asked me to brief a large group of intelligence people; when I came back from the Asian‑African conference in 1955, for example; they mainly wanted to know about various people.”
As Washington bureau chief, Lindley said he learned from Malcolm Muir that the magazine’s stringer in southeastern Europe was a CIA contract employee—given credentials under arrangements worked out with the management. “I remember it came up—whether it was a good idea to keep this person from the Agency; eventually it was decided to discontinue the association,” Lindley said.
When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. “It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from,” said a former deputy director of the Agency. “Frank Wisner dealt with him.” Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency’s premier orchestrator of “black” operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his “mighty Wurlitzer,” a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner’s closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
In 1965‑66, an accredited Newsweekstringer in the Far East was in fact a CIA contract employee earning an annual salary of $10,000 from the Agency, according to Robert T. Wood, then a CIA officer in the Hong Kong station. Some, Newsweek correspondents and stringers continued to maintain covert ties with the Agency into the 1970s, CIA sources said.
Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements.
All editors‑in‑chief and managing editors of the Post since 1950 say they knew of no formal Agency relationship with either stringers or members of the Post staff. “If anything was done it was done by Phil without our knowledge,” said one. Agency officials, meanwhile, make no claim that Post staff members have had covert affiliations with the Agency while working for the paper.6
Katharine Graham, Philip Graham’s widow and the current publisher of the Post, says she has never been informed of any CIA relationships with either Post or Newsweek personnel. In November of 1973, Mrs. Graham called William Colby and asked if any Post stringers or staff members were associated with the CIA. Colby assured her that no staff members were employed by the Agency but refused to discuss the question of stringers.
■ The Louisville Courier‑Journal. From December 1964 until March 1965, a CIA undercover operative named Robert H. Campbell worked on the Courier‑Journal. According to high‑level CIA sources, Campbell was hired by the paper under arrangements the Agency made with Norman E. Isaacs, then executive editor of the Courier‑Journal. Barry Bingham Sr., then publisher of the paper, also had knowledge of the arrangements, the sources said. Both Isaacs and Bingham have denied knowing that Campbell was an intelligence agent when he was hired.
The complex saga of Campbell’s hiring was first revealed in a Courier‑Journal story written by James R Herzog on March 27th, 1976, during the Senate committee’s investigation, Herzog’s account began: “When 28‑year‑old Robert H. Campbell was hired as a Courier‑Journal reporter in December 1964, he couldn’t type and knew little about news writing.” The account then quoted the paper’s former managing editor as saying that Isaacs told him that Campbell was hired as a result of a CIA request: “Norman said, when he was in Washington [in 1964], he had been called to lunch with some friend of his who was with the CIA [and that] he wanted to send this young fellow down to get him a little knowledge of newspapering.” All aspects of Campbell’s hiring were highly unusual. No effort had been made to check his credentials, and his employment records contained the following two notations: “Isaacs has files of correspondence and investigation of this man”; and, “Hired for temporary work—no reference checks completed or needed.”
The level of Campbell’s journalistic abilities apparently remained consistent during his stint at the paper, “The stuff that Campbell turned in was almost unreadable,” said a former assistant city editor. One of Campbell’s major reportorial projects was a feature about wooden Indians. It was never published. During his tenure at the paper, Campbell frequented a bar a few steps from the office where, on occasion, he reportedly confided to fellow drinkers that he was a CIA employee.
According to CIA sources, Campbell’s tour at the Courier‑Journal was arranged to provide him with a record of journalistic experience that would enhance the plausibility of future reportorial cover and teach him something about the newspaper business. The Courier‑Journal’s investigation also turned up the fact that before coming to Louisville he had worked briefly for the Hornell, New York, Evening Tribune, published by Freedom News, Inc. CIA sources said the Agency had made arrangements with that paper’s management to employ Campbell.7
At the Courier‑Journal, Campbell was hired under arrangements made with Isaacs and approved by Bingham, said CIA and Senate sources. “We paid the Courier‑Journal so they could pay his salary,” said an Agency official who was involved in the transaction. Responding by letter to these assertions, Isaacs, who left Louisville to become president and publisher of the Wilmington Delaware) News & Journal, said: “All I can do is repeat the simple truth—that never, under any circumstances, or at any time, have I ever knowingly hired a government agent. I’ve also tried to dredge my memory, but Campbell’s hiring meant so little to me that nothing emerges…. None of this is to say that I couldn’t have been ‘had.’”.Barry Bingham Sr., said last year in a telephone interview that he had no specific memory of Campbell’s hiring and denied that he knew of any arrangements between the newspaper’s management and the CIA. However, CIA officials said that the Courier‑Journal, through contacts with Bingham, provided other unspecified assistance to the Agency in the 1950s and 1960s. The Courier‑Journal’s detailed, front‑page account of Campbell’s hiring was initiated by Barry Bingham Jr., who succeeded his father as editor and publisher of the paper in 1971. The article is the only major piece of self‑investigation by a newspaper that has appeared on this subject.8
■ The American Broadcasting Company and the National Broadcasting Company. According to CIA officials, ABC continued to provide cover for some CIA operatives through the 1960s. One was Sam Jaffe who CIA officials said performed clandestine tasks for the Agency. Jaffe has acknowledged only providing the CIA with information. In addition, another well‑known network correspondent performed covert tasks for the Agency, said CIA sources. At the time of the Senate bearings, Agency officials serving at the highest levels refused to say whether the CIA was still maintaining active relationships with members of the ABC‑News organization. All cover arrangements were made with the knowledge off ABC executives, the sources said.
These same sources professed to know few specifies about the Agency’s relationships with NBC, except that several foreign correspondents of the network undertook some assignments for the Agency in the 1950s and 1960s. “It was a thing people did then,” said Richard Wald, president of NBC News since 1973. “I wouldn’t be surprised if people here—including some of the correspondents in those days—had connections with the Agency.”
■ The Copley Press, and its subsidiary, the Copley News Service. This relationship, first disclosed publicly by reporters Joe Trento and Dave Roman in Penthouse magazine, is said by CIA officials to have been among the Agency’s most productive in terms of getting “outside” cover for its employees. Copley owns nine newspapers in California and Illinois—among them the San Diego Union and Evening Tribune. The Trento‑Roman account, which was financed by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism, asserted that at least twenty‑three Copley News Service employees performed work for the CIA. “The Agency’s involvement with the Copley organization is so extensive that it’s almost impossible to sort out,” said a CIA official who was asked about the relationship late in 1976. Other Agency officials said then that James S. Copley, the chain’s owner until his death in 1973, personally made most of the cover arrangements with the CIA.
According to Trento and Roman, Copley personally volunteered his news service to then‑president Eisenhower to act as “the eyes and ears” against “the Communist threat in Latin and Central America” for “our intelligence services.” James Copley was also the guiding hand behind the Inter‑American Press Association, a CIA‑funded organization with heavy membership among right‑wing Latin American newspaper editors.
■ Other major news organizations. According to Agency officials, CIA files document additional cover arrangements with the following news‑gathering organizations, among others: the New York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday‑Evening Post, Scripps‑Howard Newspapers, Hearst Newspapers Seymour K. Freidin, Hearst’s current London bureau chief and a former Herald‑Tribune editor and correspondent, has been identified as a CIA operative by Agency sources), Associated Press,9 United Press International, the Mutual Broadcasting System, Reuters and the Miami Herald. Cover arrangements with the Herald, according to CIA officials, were unusual in that they were made “on the ground by the CIA station in Miami, not from CIA headquarters.
“And that’s just a small part of the list,” in the words of one official who served in the CIA hierarchy. Like many sources, this official said that the only way to end the uncertainties about aid furnished the Agency by journalists is to disclose the contents of the CIA files—a course opposed by almost all of the thirty‑five present and former CIA officials interviewed over the course of a year.COLBY CUTS HIS LOSSES
THE CIA’S USE OF JOURNALISTS CONTINUED VIRTUALLY unabated until 1973 when, in response to public disclosure that the Agency had secretly employed American reporters, William Colby began scaling down the program. In his public statements, Colby conveyed the impression that the use of journalists had been minimal and of limited importance to the Agency.
He then initiated a series of moves intended to convince the press, Congress and the public that the CIA had gotten out of the news business. But according to Agency officials, Colby had in fact thrown a protective net around his valuable intelligence in the journalistic community. He ordered his deputies to maintain Agency ties with its best journalist contacts while severing formal relationships with many regarded as inactive, relatively unproductive or only marginally important. In reviewing Agency files to comply with Colby’s directive, officials found that many journalists had not performed useful functions for the CIA in years. Such relationships, perhaps as many as a hundred, were terminated between 1973 and 1976.
Meanwhile, important CIA operatives who had been placed on the staffs of some major newspaper and broadcast outlets were told to resign and become stringers or freelancers, thus enabling Colby to assure concerned editors that members of their staffs were not CIA employees. Colby also feared that some valuable stringer‑operatives might find their covers blown if scrutiny of the Agency’s ties with journalists continued. Some of these individuals were reassigned to jobs on so‑called proprietary publications—foreign periodicals and broadcast outlets secretly funded and staffed by the CIA. Other journalists who had signed formal contracts with the CIA—making them employees of the Agency—were released from their contracts, and asked to continue working under less formal arrangements.
In November 1973, after many such shifts had been made, Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general‑circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high‑level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy‑five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976.
Colby, who built a reputation as one of the most skilled undercover tacticians in the CIA’s history, had himself run journalists in clandestine operations before becoming director in 1973. But even he was said by his closest associates to have been disturbed at how extensively and, in his view, indiscriminately, the Agency continued to use journalists at the time he took over. “Too prominent,” the director frequently said of some of the individuals and news organizations then working with the CIA. Others in the Agency refer to their best‑known journalistic assets as “brand names.”)
“Colby’s concern was that he might lose the resource altogether unless we became a little more careful about who we used and how we got them,” explained one of the former director’s deputies. The thrust of Colby’s subsequent actions was to move the Agency’s affiliations away from the so‑called “majors” and to concentrate them instead in smaller newspaper chains, broadcasting groups and such specialized publications as trade journals and newsletters.
After Colby left the Agency on January 28th, 1976, and was succeeded by George Bush, the CIA announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contractual relationship with any full‑time or part‑time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station” At the time of the announcement, the Agency acknowledged that the policy would result in termination of less than half of the relationships with the 50 U.S. journalists it said were still affiliated with the Agency. The text of the announcement noted that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists. Thus, many relationships were permitted to remain intact.
The Agency’s unwillingness to end its use of journalists and its continued relationships with some news executives is largely the product of two basic facts of the intelligence game: journalistic cover is ideal because of the inquisitive nature of a reporter’s job; and many other sources of institutional cover have been denied the CIA in recent years by businesses, foundations and educational institutions that once cooperated with the Agency.
“It’s tough to run a secret agency in this country,” explained one high‑level CIA official. “We have a curious ambivalence about intelligence. In order to serve overseas we need cover. But we have been fighting a rear‑guard action to try and provide cover. The Peace Corps is off‑limits, so is USIA, the foundations and voluntary organizations have been off‑limits since ‘67, and there is a self‑imposed prohibition on Fulbrights [Fulbright Scholars]. If you take the American community and line up who could work for the CIA and who couldn’t there is a very narrow potential. Even the Foreign Service doesn’t want us. So where the hell do you go? Business is nice, but the press is a natural. One journalist is worth twenty agents. He has access, the ability to ask questions without arousing suspicion.”
ROLE OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE
DESPITE THE EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD CIA USE OF journalists, the Senate Intelligence Committee and its staff decided against questioning any of the reporters, editors, publishers or broadcast executives whose relationships with the Agency are detailed in CIA files.
According to sources in the Senate and the Agency, the use of journalists was one of two areas of inquiry which the CIA went to extraordinary lengths to curtail. The other was the Agency’s continuing and extensive use of academics for recruitment and information gathering purposes.
In both instances, the sources said, former directors Colby and Bush and CIA special counsel Mitchell Rogovin were able to convince key members of the committee that full inquiry or even limited public disclosure of the dimensions of the activities would do irreparable damage to the nation’s intelligence‑gathering apparatus, as well as to the reputations of hundreds of individuals. Colby was reported to have been especially persuasive in arguing that disclosure would bring on a latter‑day “witch hunt” in which the victims would be reporters, publishers and editors.
Walter Elder, deputy to former CIA director McCone and the principal Agency liaison to the Church committee, argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction because there had been no misuse of journalists by the CIA; the relationships had been voluntary. Elder cited as an example the case of the Louisville Courier‑Journal. “Church and other people on the committee were on the chandelier about the Courier‑Journal,” one Agency official said, “until we pointed out that we had gone to the editor to arrange cover, and that the editor had said, ‘Fine.’”
Some members of the Church committee and staff feared that Agency officials had gained control of the inquiry and that they were being hoodwinked. “The Agency was extremely clever about it and the committee played right into its hands,” said one congressional source familiar with all aspects of the inquiry. “Church and some of the other members were much more interested in making headlines than in doing serious, tough investigating. The Agency pretended to be giving up a lot whenever it was asked about the flashy stuff—assassinations and secret weapons and James Bond operations. Then, when it came to things that they didn’t want to give away, that were much more important to the Agency, Colby in particular called in his chits. And the committee bought it.”
The Senate committee’s investigation into the use of journalists was supervised by William B. Bader, a former CIA intelligence officer who returned briefly to the Agency this year as deputy to CIA director Stansfield Turner and is now a high‑level intelligence official at the Defense Department. Bader was assisted by David Aaron, who now serves as the deputy to Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser.
According to colleagues on the staff of the Senate inquiry, both Bader and Aaron were disturbed by the information contained in CIA files about journalists; they urged that further investigation he undertaken by the Senate’s new permanent CIA oversight committee. That committee, however, has spent its first year of existence writing a new charter for the CIA, and members say there has been little interest in delving further into the CIA’s use of the press.
Bader’s investigation was conducted under unusually difficult conditions. His first request for specific information on the use of journalists was turned down by the CIA on grounds that there had been no abuse of authority and that current intelligence operations might he compromised. Senators Walter Huddleston, Howard Baker, Gary Hart, Walter Mondale and Charles Mathias—who had expressed interest in the subject of the press and the CIA—shared Bader’s distress at the CIA’s reaction. In a series of phone calls and meetings with CIA director George Bush and other Agency officials, the senators insisted that the committee staff be provided information about the scope of CIA‑press activities. Finally, Bush agreed to order a search of the files and have those records pulled which deals with operations where journalists had been used. But the raw files could not he made available to Bader or the committee, Bush insisted. Instead, the director decided, his deputies would condense the material into one‑paragraph summaries describing in the most general terms the activities of each individual journalist. Most important, Bush decreed, the names of journalists and of the news organizations with which they were affiliated would be omitted from the summaries. However, there might be some indication of the region where the journalist had served and a general description of the type of news organization for which he worked.
Assembling the summaries was difficult, according to CIA officials who supervised the job. There were no “journalist files” per se and information had to be collected from divergent sources that reflect the highly compartmentalized character of the CIA. Case officers who had handled journalists supplied some names. Files were pulled on various undercover operations in which it seemed logical that journalists had been used. Significantly, all work by reporters for the Agency under the category of covert operations, not foreign intelligence.) Old station records were culled. “We really had to scramble,” said one official.
After several weeks, Bader began receiving the summaries, which numbered over 400 by the time the Agency said it had completed searching its files.
The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency’s files on the use of journalists. “We gave them a broad, representative picture,” said one agency official. “We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us.” A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists—including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.
Bader and others to whom he described the contents of the summaries immediately reached some general conclusions: the sheer number of covert relationships with journalists was far greater than the CIA had ever hinted; and the Agency’s use of reporters and news executives was an intelligence asset of the first magnitude. Reporters had been involved in almost every conceivable kind of operation. Of the 400‑plus individuals whose activities were summarized, between 200 and 250 were “working journalists” in the usual sense of the term—reporters, editors, correspondents, photographers; the rest were employed at least nominally) by book publishers, trade publications and newsletters.
Still, the summaries were just that: compressed, vague, sketchy, incomplete. They could be subject to ambiguous interpretation. And they contained no suggestion that the CIA had abused its authority by manipulating the editorial content of American newspapers or broadcast reports.
Bader’s unease with what he had found led him to seek advice from several experienced hands in the fields of foreign relations and intelligence. They suggested that he press for more information and give those members of the committee in whom he had the most confidence a general idea of what the summaries revealed. Bader again went to Senators Huddleston, Baker, Hart, Mondale and Mathias. Meanwhile, he told the CIA that he wanted to see more—the full files on perhaps a hundred or so of the individuals whose activities had been summarized. The request was turned down outright. The Agency would provide no more information on the subject. Period.
The CIA’s intransigence led to an extraordinary dinner meeting at Agency headquarters in late March 1976. Those present included Senators Frank Church who had now been briefed by Bader), and John Tower, the vice‑chairman of the committee; Bader; William Miller, director of the committee staff; CIA director Bush; Agency counsel Rogovin; and Seymour Bolten, a high‑level CIA operative who for years had been a station chief in Germany and Willy Brandt’s case officer. Bolten had been deputized by Bush to deal with the committee’s requests for information on journalists and academics. At the dinner, the Agency held to its refusal to provide any full files. Nor would it give the committee the names of any individual journalists described in the 400 summaries or of the news organizations with whom they were affiliated. The discussion, according to participants, grew heated. The committee’s representatives said they could not honor their mandate—to determine if the CIA had abused its authority—without further information. The CIA maintained it could not protect its legitimate intelligence operations or its employees if further disclosures were made to the committee. Many of the journalists were contract employees of the Agency, Bush said at one point, and the CIA was no less obligated to them than to any other agents.
Finally, a highly unusual agreement was hammered out: Bader and Miller would be permitted to examine “sanitized” versions of the full files of twenty‑five journalists selected from the summaries; but the names of the journalists and the news organizations which employed them would be blanked out, as would the identities of other CIA employees mentioned in the files. Church and Tower would be permitted to examine the unsanitizedversions of five of the twenty‑five files—to attest that the CIA was not hiding anything except the names. The whole deal was contingent on an agreement that neither Bader, Miner, Tower nor Church would reveal the contents of the files to other members of the committee or staff.
Bader began reviewing the 400‑some summaries again. His object was to select twenty‑five that, on the basis of the sketchy information they contained, seemed to represent a cross section. Dates of CIA activity, general descriptions of news organizations, types of journalists and undercover operations all figured in his calculations.
From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, ‘60s and even early ‘70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both—particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession.
“There is quite an incredible spread of relationships,” Bader reported to the senators. “You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are Agency people at the management level.”
Ironically, one major news organization that set limits on its dealings with the CIA, according to Agency officials, was the one with perhaps the greatest editorial affinity for the Agency’s long‑range goals and policies: U.S. News and World Report. The late David Lawrence, the columnist and founding editor of U.S. News, was a close friend of Allen Dulles. But he repeatedly refused requests by the CIA director to use the magazine for cover purposes, the sources said. At one point, according to a high CIA official, Lawrence issued orders to his sub‑editors in which he threatened to fire any U.S. News employee who was found to have entered into a formal relationship with the Agency. Former editorial executives at the magazine confirmed that such orders had been issued. CIA sources declined to say, however, if the magazine remained off‑limits to the Agency after Lawrence’s death in 1973 or if Lawrence’s orders had been followed.)
Meanwhile, Bader attempted to get more information from the CIA, particularly about the Agency’s current relationships with journalists. He encountered a stone wall. “Bush has done nothing to date,” Bader told associates. “None of the important operations are affected in even a marginal way.” The CIA also refused the staffs requests for more information on the use of academics. Bush began to urge members of the committee to curtail its inquiries in both areas and conceal its findings in the final report. “He kept saying, ‘Don’t fuck these guys in the press and on the campuses,’ pleading that they were the only areas of public life with any credibility left,” reported a Senate source. Colby, Elder and Rogovin also implored individual members of the committee to keep secret what the staff had found. “There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared,” said another source. Exposure of the CIA’s relationships with journalists and academics, the Agency feared, would close down two of the few avenues of agent recruitment still open. “The danger of exposure is not the other side,” explained one CIA expert in covert operations. “This is not stuff the other side doesn’t know about. The concern of the Agency is that another area of cover will be denied.”
A senator who was the object of the Agency’s lobbying later said: “From the CIA point of view this was the highest, most sensitive covert program of all…. It was a much larger part of the operational system than has been indicated.” He added, “I had a great compulsion to press the point but it was late …. If we had demanded, they would have gone the legal route to fight it.”
Indeed, time was running out for the committee. In the view of many staff members, it had squandered its resources in the search for CIA assassination plots and poison pen letters. It had undertaken the inquiry into journalists almost as an afterthought. The dimensions of the program and the CIA’s sensitivity to providing information on it had caught the staff and the committee by surprise. The CIA oversight committee that would succeed the Church panel would have the inclination and the time to inquire into the subject methodically; if, as seemed likely, the CIA refused to cooperate further, the mandate of the successor committee would put it in a more advantageous position to wage a protracted fight …. Or so the reasoning went as Church and the few other senators even vaguely familiar with Bader’s findings reached a decision not to pursue the matter further. No journalists would be interviewed about their dealings with the Agency—either by the staff or by the senators, in secret or in open session. The specter, first raised by CIA officials, of a witch hunt in the press corps haunted some members of the staff and the committee. “We weren’t about to bring up guys to the committee and then have everybody say they’ve been traitors to the ideals of their profession,” said a senator.
Bader, according to associates, was satisfied with the decision and believed that the successor committee would pick up the inquiry where he had left it. He was opposed to making public the names of individual journalists. He had been concerned all along that he had entered a “gray area” in which there were no moral absolutes. Had the CIA “manipulated” the press in the classic sense of the term? Probably not, he concluded; the major news organizations and their executives had willingly lent their resources to the Agency; foreign correspondents had regarded work for the CIA as a national service and a way of getting better stories and climbing to the top of their profession. Had the CIA abused its authority? It had dealt with the press almost exactly as it had dealt with other institutions from which it sought cover — the diplomatic service, academia, corporations. There was nothing in the CIA’s charter which declared any of these institutions off‑limits to America’s intelligence service. And, in the case of the press, the Agency had exercised more care in its dealings than with many other institutions; it had gone to considerable lengths to restrict its role to information‑gathering and cover.10
Bader was also said to be concerned that his knowledge was so heavily based on information furnished by the CIA; he hadn’t gotten the other side of the story from those journalists who had associated with the Agency. He could be seeing only “the lantern show,” he told associates. Still, Bader was reasonably sure that he had seen pretty much the full panoply of what was in the files. If the CIA had wanted to deceive him it would have never given away so much, he reasoned. “It was smart of the Agency to cooperate to the extent of showing the material to Bader,” observed a committee source. “That way, if one fine day a file popped up, the Agency would be covered. They could say they had already informed the Congress.”
The dependence on CIA files posed another problem. The CIA’s perception of a relationship with a journalist might be quite different than that of the journalist: a CIA official might think he had exercised control over a journalist; the journalist might think he had simply had a few drinks with a spook. It was possible that CIA case officers had written self‑serving memos for the files about their dealings with journalists, that the CIA was just as subject to common bureaucratic “cover‑your‑ass” paperwork as any other agency of government.
A CIA official who attempted to persuade members of the Senate committee that the Agency’s use of journalists had been innocuous maintained that the files were indeed filled with “puffing” by case officers. “You can’t establish what is puff and what isn’t,” he claimed. Many reporters, he added, “were recruited for finite [specific] undertakings and would be appalled to find that they were listed [in Agency files] as CIA operatives.” This same official estimated that the files contained descriptions of about half a dozen reporters and correspondents who would be considered “famous”—that is, their names would be recognized by most Americans. “The files show that the CIA goes to the press for and just as often that the press comes to the CIA,” he observed. “…There is a tacit agreement in many of these cases that there is going to be a quid pro quo”—i.e., that the reporter is going to get good stories from the Agency and that the CIA will pick up some valuable services from the reporter.
Whatever the interpretation, the findings of the Senate committees inquiry into the use of journalists were deliberately buried—from the full membership of the committee, from the Senate and from the public. “There was a difference of opinion on how to treat the subject,” explained one source. “Some [senators] thought these were abuses which should be exorcized and there were those who said, ‘We don’t know if this is bad or not.’”
Bader’s findings on the subject were never discussed with the full committee, even in executive session. That might have led to leaks—especially in view of the explosive nature of the facts. Since the beginning of the Church committee’s investigation, leaks had been the panel’s biggest collective fear, a real threat to its mission. At the slightest sign of a leak the CIA might cut off the flow of sensitive information as it did, several times in other areas), claiming that the committee could not be trusted with secrets. “It was as if we were on trial—not the CIA,” said a member of the committee staff. To describe in the committee’s final report the true dimensions of the Agency’s use of journalists would cause a furor in the press and on the Senate floor. And it would result in heavy pressure on the CIA to end its use of journalists altogether. “We just weren’t ready to take that step,” said a senator. A similar decision was made to conceal the results of the staff’s inquiry into the use of academics. Bader, who supervised both areas of inquiry, concurred in the decisions and drafted those sections of the committee’s final report. Pages 191 to 201 were entitled “Covert Relationships with the United States Media.” “It hardly reflects what we found,” stated Senator Gary Hart. “There was a prolonged and elaborate negotiation [with the CIA] over what would be said.”
Obscuring the facts was relatively simple. No mention was made of the 400 summaries or what they showed. Instead the report noted blandly that some fifty recent contacts with journalists had been studied by the committee staff—thus conveying the impression that the Agency’s dealings with the press had been limited to those instances. The Agency files, the report noted, contained little evidence that the editorial content of American news reports had been affected by the CIA’s dealings with journalists. Colby’s misleading public statements about the use of journalists were repeated without serious contradiction or elaboration. The role of cooperating news executives was given short shrift. The fact that the Agency had concentrated its relationships in the most prominent sectors of the press went unmentioned. That the CIA continued to regard the press as up for grabs was not even suggested.
Former ‘Washington Post’ reporter CARL BERNSTEIN is now working on a book about the witch hunts of the Cold War.
1 John McCone, director of the Agency from 1961 to 1965, said in a recent interview that he knew about “great deal of debriefing and exchanging help” but nothing about any arrangements for cover the CIA might have made with media organizations. “I wouldn’t necessarily have known about it,” he said. “Helms would have handled anything like that. It would be unusual for him to come to me and say, ‘We’re going to use journalists for cover.’ He had a job to do. There was no policy during my period that would say, ‘Don’t go near that water,’ nor was there one saying, ‘Go to it!'” During the Church committee bearings, McCone testified that his subordinates failed to tell him about domestic surveillance activities or that they were working on plans to assassinate Fidel Castro. Richard Helms was deputy director of the Agency at the time; he became director in 1966.
2 A stringer is a reporter who works for one or several news organizations on a retainer or on a piecework basis.
3 From the CIA point of view, access to newsfilm outtakes and photo libraries is a matter of extreme importance. The Agency’s photo archive is probably the greatest on earth; its graphic sources include satellites, photoreconnaissance, planes, miniature cameras … and the American press. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Agency obtained carte‑blanche borrowing privileges in the photo libraries of literally dozens of American newspapers, magazines and television, outlets. For obvious reasons, the CIA also assigned high priority to the recruitment of photojournalists, particularly foreign‑based members of network camera crews.
4 On April 3rd, 1961, Koop left the Washington bureau to become head of CBS, Inc.’s Government Relations Department — a position he held until his retirement on March 31st, 1972. Koop, who worked as a deputy in the Censorship Office in World War II, continued to deal with the CIA in his new position, according to CBS sources.
5 Hayes, who left the Washington Post Company in 1965 to become U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland, is now chairman of the board of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty — both of which severed their ties with the CIA in 1971. Hayes said he cleared his participation in the China project with the late Frederick S. Beebe, then chairman of the board of the Washington Post Company. Katharine Graham, the Post’s publisher, was unaware of the nature of the assignment, he said. Participants in the project signed secrecy agreements.
6 Philip Geyelin, editor of the Post editorial page, worked for the Agency before joining the Post.
7 Louis Buisch, presidentof the publishing company of the Hornell, New York, Evening Tribune, told the Courier‑Journal in 1976 that he remembered little about the hiring of Robert Campbell. “He wasn’t there very long, and he didn’t make much of an impression,” said Buisch, who has since retired from active management of the newspaper.
8 Probably the most thoughtful article on the subject of the press and the CIA was written by Stuart H. Loory and appeared in the September‑October 1974 issue of Columbia Journalism Review.
9 Wes Gallagher, general manager of the Associated Press from 1962 to 1976, takes vigorous exception to the notion that the Associated Press might have aided the Agency. “We’ve always stayed clear on the CIA; I would have fired anybody who worked for them. We don’t even let our people debrief.” At the time of the first disclosures that reporters had worked for the CIA, Gallagher went to Colby. “We tried to find out names. All he would say was that no full‑time staff member of the Associated Press was employed by the Agency. We talked to Bush. He said the same thing.” If any Agency personnel were placed in Associated Press bureaus, said Gallagher, it was done without consulting the management of the wire service. But Agency officials insist that they were able to make cover arrangements through someone in the upper management levelsof Associated Press, whom they refuse to identify.
10 Many journalists and some CIA officials dispute the Agency’s claim that it has been scrupulous in respecting the editorial integrity of American publications and broadcast outlets.
Was it not that Russians finally tired of the Kremlin’s lies and hypocrisies that permeated every facet of their falsified lives?
Here are 10 symptoms of Sovietism. Ask yourself whether we are headed down this same road to perdition.
1. There was no escape from ideological indoctrination — anywhere. A job in the bureaucracy or a military assignment hinged not so much on merit, expertise or past achievement. What mattered was loud enthusiasm for the Soviet system.
Wokeness is becoming our new Soviet-like state religion. Careerists assert that America was always and still is a systemically racist country, without ever producing proof or a sustained argument.
2. The Soviets fused their press with the government. Pravda, or “Truth,” was the official megaphone of state-sanctioned lies. Journalists simply regurgitated the talking points of their Communist Party partners.
In 2017, a Harvard study found that more than 90 percent of the major TV news networks’ coverage of the Trump administration’s first 100 days was negative.
3. The Soviet surveillance state enlisted apparatchiks and lackeys to ferret out ideological dissidents.
Recently, we learned that the Department of Defense is reviewing its rosters to spot extremist sentiments. The U.S. Postal Service recently admitted it uses tracking programs to monitor the social media postings of Americans.
CNN recently alleged that the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security is considering partnering with private surveillance firms to get around government prohibitions on scrutinizing Americans’ online activity.
4. The Soviet educational system sought not to enlighten but to indoctrinate young minds in proper government-approved thought.
Currently, cash-strapped universities nationwide are hiring thousands of diversity, equity and inclusion staffers and administrators. Their chief task is to scan the admissions, hiring, curriculum and administration at universities. Like good commissars, our diversity czars oversee compliance with the official narrative that a flawed America must confess, apologize for and renounce its evil foundations.
5. The Soviet Union was run by a pampered elite, exempt from the ramifications of their own radical ideologies.
Now, woke Silicon Valley billionaires talk socialistically but live royally. Coke and Delta Airlines CEOs who hector Americans about their illiberality make millions of dollars a year.
What unites current woke activists such as Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James, Mark Zuckerberg and the Obamas are their huge estates and their multimillion-dollar wealth. Just as the select few of the old Soviet nomenklatura had their Black Sea dachas, America’s loudest top-down revolutionaries prefer living in Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills, Montecito and Malibu.
6. The Soviets mastered Trotskyization, or the rewriting and airbrushing away of history to fabricate present reality.
Are Americans any different when they indulge in a frenzy of name-changing, statue-toppling, monument-defacing, book-banning and cancel-culturing?
7. The Soviets created a climate of fear and rewarded stool pigeons for rooting out all potential enemies of the people.
Since when did Americans encourage co-workers to turn in others for an ill-considered word in a private conversation? Why do thousands now scour the internet to find any past incorrect expression of a rival? Why are there now new thought criminals supposedly guilty of climate racism, immigration racism or vaccination racism?
8. Soviet prosecutors and courts were weaponized according to ideology.
In America, where and for what reason you riot determines whether you face any legal consequences. Politically correct sanctuary cities defy the law with impunity. Jury members are terrified of being doxxed and hunted down for an incorrect verdict. The CIA and FBI are becoming as ideological as the old KGB.
9. The Soviets doled out prizes on the basis of correct Soviet thought.
In modern America, the Pulitzer Prizes and the Emmys, Grammys, Tonys and Oscars don’t necessarily reflect the year’s best work, but often the most politically correct work from the most woke.
10. The Soviets offered no apologies for extinguishing freedom. Instead, they boasted that they were advocates for equity, champions of the underclass, enemies of privilege — and therefore could terminate anyone or anything they pleased.
Our wokists are similarly defending their thought-control efforts, forced re-education sessions, scripted confessionals, mandatory apologies and cancel culture on the pretense that we need long-overdue “fundamental transformation.”
So if they destroy people in the name of equity, their nihilism is justified.
Fuellmich and his team present the incorrect PCR test and the order for doctors to describe any comorbidity death as a Covid death – as fraud.
The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is almost 100% inaccurate at 35 cycles. All PCR tests monitored by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC acknowledges that tests over 28 cycles are not allowed for a positive reliable result.
This invalidates over 90% of the alleged Covid cases / “infections” detected by the use of this incorrect test.
In addition to the incorrect tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself violates Article 32 of the Geneva Convention.
Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not required for the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited.
According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a serious breach of the Convention.
The “Experimental” Vaccine Violates All 10 Nuremberg Codes – Which Carry The Death Penalty For Those Who Try To Break These International Laws:
1) Provides immunity to the virus
This is a “leaky” gene therapy that does not provide immunity to Covid and claims that they reduce the symptoms, but double-vaccinated are now 60% of patients who need ER or ICU with covid infections.
2) Protects the recipients from getting the virus
This gene therapy does not provide immunity and the double vaccine can still catch and spread the virus.
3) Reduces deaths due to viral infection
This gene therapy does not reduce deaths from the infection. Double-vaccinated people infected with Covid have also died.
4) Reduces the circulation of the virus
This gene therapy still allows the virus to spread because it gives zero immunity to the virus.
5) Reduces the transmission of the virus
This gene therapy still allows transmission of the virus because it does not confer immunity to the virus.
The following violations of the Nuremberg Code apply:
Nuremberg Code # 1: Voluntary consent is important
No person should be forced to take a medical experiment without informed consent.
Many media, political and non-medical people urge people to take the injection.
They do not provide information about the negative effects or dangers of this gene therapy. All you hear from them is – “safe and effective” and “the benefits outweigh the risks.”
Countries use blockades, coercion and threats to force people to take this vaccine or are banned from participating in free society under the mandate of a vaccine pass or Green Pass.
During the Nuremberg trials, the media were also prosecuted and members were killed for lying to the public, along with many of the doctors and Nazis found guilty of crimes against humanity.
Nuremberg Code # 2: Yields with fruitful results that cannot be produced by other means
As mentioned above, gene therapy does not meet the criteria for a vaccine and does not offer immunity to the virus. There are other medical treatments that give fruitful results against Covid, such as Ivermectin, vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc and strengthened immune system for flu and colds.
Nuremberg Code # 3: Basic experiments as a result of animal experiments and natural history disease
This gene therapy skipped animal experiments and went directly to human experiments.
In mRNA research used by Pfizer – a candidate study on mRNA with rhesus macaques monkeys using BNT162b2 mRNA and in that study all monkeys developed pneumonia but the researchers considered the risk low because these were young healthy monkeys from 2-4 years of age.
Israel has used Pfizer and the International Court of Justice has accepted a requirement that 80% of recipients with pneumonia should be injected with this gene therapy.
Despite this alarming development, Pfizer continued to develop its mRNA for Covid, without animal testing.
Nuremberg Code # 4: Avoid all unnecessary suffering and injury
Since the launch of the experiment and listed under the CDC VAERS reporting system, over 4,000 deaths and 50,000 vaccine injuries have been reported in the United States. In the EU, more than 7,000 deaths and 365,000 vaccine injuries have been reported. This is a serious violation of this code.
Nuremberg Code # 5: No experiment should be performed if there is reason to believe that injury or death will occur
See No. 4, based on fact-based medical data, this gene therapy causes death and injury. Previous research on mRNA also shows several risks that have been ignored for this current experimental gene experiment. A 2002 study of SARS-CoV-1 nail proteins showed that they cause inflammation, immunopathology, blood clots and inhibit Angiotensin 2 expression. This experiment forces the body to produce this nail protein that inherits all these risks.
Nuremberg Code # 6: The risk should never exceed the benefit
Covid-19 has a recovery rate of 98-99%. Vaccine damage, death, and adverse side effects of mRNA gene therapy far outweigh this risk.
The use of “leaky” vaccines was banned for agricultural use by the US and the EU due to the Marek Chicken study which shows “hot viruses” and variants appear… make the disease even more deadly.
Nevertheless, this has been ignored for human use by the CDC aware that the risk of new, more deadly variants arises from leaky vaccinations. The CDC is fully aware that the use of leaky vaccines facilitates the emergence of hotter (more deadly) strains. Yet they have ignored this when it comes to humans
Nuremberg Code # 7: Preparations must be made for even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death
No preparations were made. This gene therapy skipped animal experiments. The pharmaceutical companies’ own clinical phase 3 studies will not end until 2022/2023. These vaccines were approved in an emergency
Use only action to force on a misinformed public. They are NOT FDA approved.
Nuremberg Code # 8: Experiments must be carried out by scientifically qualified persons
Politicians, the media and actors who claim that this is a safe and effective vaccine are not qualified. Propaganda is not medical science.
Many stores such as Walmart & drive-through vaccine centers are not qualified to administer experimental medical gene therapies to the uninformed public.
Nuremberg Code # 9: Everyone must have the freedom to end the experiment at any time
Despite the call from over 85,000 doctors, nurses, virologists and epidemiologists – the experiment does not end. In fact, there are currently many attempts to change laws to enforce vaccine compliance.
This includes mandatory and mandatory vaccinations. Experimental “sprayers” are planned every six months without using the growing number of deaths and injuries already caused by this experiment.
These update images will be administered without any clinical trials. Hopefully, this new Nuremberg trial will put an end to this crime against humanity.
Nuremberg Code # 10: The researcher must terminate the experiment at any time if there is a probable cause for injury or death
It is clear from statistical reporting data that this experiment leads to death and injury. But not all politicians, pharmaceutical companies and so-called experts make any attempt to stop this gene therapy experiment from harming a misinformed public.
Legal proceedings are progressing, evidence has been gathered and a large growing group of experts is sounding the alarm.
The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.
A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.”
Salk researchers collaborated with scientists at the University of California San Diego on the paper, including co-first author Jiao Zhang and co-senior author John Shyy, among others.
While the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.
In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.
The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.
Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.
“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID,” Manor explains. “Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS CoV-2 viruses.”
The researchers next hope to take a closer look at the mechanism by which the disrupted ACE2 protein damages mitochondria and causes them to change shape.
Other authors on the study are Yuyang Lei and Zu-Yi Yuan of Jiaotong University in Xi’an, China; Cara R. Schiavon, Leonardo Andrade, and Gerald S. Shadel of Salk; Ming He, Hui Shen, Yichi Zhang, Yoshitake Cho, Mark Hepokoski, Jason X.-J. Yuan, Atul Malhotra, Jin Zhang of the University of California San Diego; Lili Chen, Qian Yin, Ting Lei, Hongliang Wang and Shengpeng Wang of Xi’an Jiatong University Health Science Center in Xi’an, China.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Shaanxi Natural Science Fund, the National Key Research and Development Program, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University; and Xi’an Jiaotong University.
NY Times: Biden Wants to Raise Taxes, Yet Many Trump Tax Cuts Are Here to Stay
Partly for political reasons and mainly for economic reasons, that person who looks like he’s wearing a state-of-the-art mask while “working” in what looks like a staged “Oval Office” will not be able to follow through on his campaign threat to revoke the Trump income tax cuts — at least not the one for less-than-wealthy households. That’s nice to hear, but always lost in the modern debate over tax levels is the forgotten fact that the U.S. Constitution — a document which all politicians solemnly pledge to uphold and defend — does not even permit a tax on labor. As hard as it may be for contemporary Americans to even imagine, it was little more than a single long lifetime ago, 108 years to be precise, that no American, rich, poor, or in-between, paid any income tax, at all! And even as recently as the eve of World War II, it was mainly the top 10% who paid any income tax.
Imagine that! A fast-growing, industrialized, dynamic, innovative, economic powerhouse nation of 100,000,000+ people — with a massive and booming middle class; and millions of European immigrants clamoring to get in, get to work, and climb up from the bottom of the ladder — with the Edison-Tesla electrical revolution already operational, and the Ford automotive revolution just getting started — and no limit to the potential of the vast United States of America of 1913. And just think, the great nation achieved it all without the “blessing” of an income tax or a debt-money central bank — a pair of related evil institutions — both established in 1913 — which today’s “smart people” assure us are indispensable for the proper functioning of a modern state.
How was it possible for America to have become so great without a central bank / income tax system, you ask? Why was the insidious form of debt-money printing and its attendant labor taxation scheme ever instituted in the first place when the country was doing just fine without them? Well, to the architects of the New World Order, both the counterfeit money from the “Fed” and the stolen “revenue” from the people were absolutely “needed” to fund the coming, pre-planned “Great War” (World War I) and the eventual welfare-control system which they already had in mind.
St. Sugar, fire up the Time Machine and set the dial to 1907, please. Into the Marxist mist of history we go!
* Note: The very same Jewish bankers behind the Fed and the Income Tax founded the NAACP in order to gradually turn conservative Blacks into libtarded victim-whiners — racial weapons to be used as sacrificial pawns against America’s White founding Class.
* JANUARY, 1907: SCHIFF ISSUES A WARNING In a speech before the Chamber of Commerce, Zionist banking mogul and Rothschild ally, Jacob Schiff, “prophetically” warns:
“Unless we have a Central Bank with control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.” (here)
* OCTOBER, 1907: CRISIS SCARES AMERICA The New York Bankers have inflated the stock market with easy loans. When lending is then tightened, the bubble bursts. Stocks crash 50%. Bank runs follow. The New York Times and Wall Street bankers use The Panic of 1907 to make a case for a European-style Central Bank (as Marx envisioned).
* 1911: SENATOR OWEN: “PANIC OF 07 WAS A CONSPIRACY!” Four years after the 07 Panic, Senator Robert Owen of Oklahoma will demand an investigation into the sudden crash. He insists that the Panic was deliberately engineered: . “(The Panic) was brought about by a deliberate conspiracy for the enrichment of those who engineered it….I regard it as treason against the United States….a few men control the power of expanding or contracting credits. This unrestrained power means the power to create panics and coerce this country politically.”
* 1908: TEDDY ROOSEVELT APPOINTS COMMISSION Wall Street sock puppet – President Theodore Roosevelt, appoints a “bi-partisan” National Monetary Commission to study the causes of the Panic and to make suggestions. The Chairman of the Commission is Senator Nelson Aldrich(whose daughter will one day be the mother of the 5 Rockefeller sons, David, John III, Nelson, Winthrop, & Lawrence)
* SURPRISE! COMMISSION CALLS FOR CENTRAL BANK The main recommendation of Aldrich’s National Monetary Commission is to establish a Central Bank with monopoly control of credit and currency issue. The privately owned Bank would create money out of thin air and lend it local banks and the government at interest.
* 1910: SECRET MEETING AT JEKYLL ISLAND Aldrich, Paul Warburg, and other agents of the Rockefeller & Rothschild dynasties meet secretly at JP Morgan’s private club in Jekyll Island, Georgia. One of the conspirators, Frank Vanderlip, will, years later, reveal to The Saturday Evening Post: . “There was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive, indeed, as furtive as any conspirator. … We were trying to plan a mechanism that would correct the weaknesses of our banking system as revealed under the strains and pressures of the Panic of 1907. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. … Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed publicly that our group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress.”
* 1912: THE ‘ALDRICH BILL’ DIES Senator Aldrich introduces a bill to establish a Central Bank (The Aldrich Bill). The scheme (hatched at Jekyll Island) is transparent, and Aldrich’s name is too closely linked to the Money Masters of New York. Congressman Charles A Lindbergh Sr. (father of the famous aviator) declares: . “The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead.” . Opposition to Aldrich’s scheme is so strong, that the bill to create a Central Bank is never even brought to the floor for a vote.
* 1913: THE ‘ALDRICH BILL’ IS REPACKAGED – THE FED IS BORN! . A few cosmetic changes are made to the old Aldrich Bill and the bill is renamed ‘The Federal Reserve Act’. Congressman Lindbergh is not fooled: . “This is the Aldrich Bill in disguise ….This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill.” . The bill passes anyway, on December 23,after many Senators and Congressmen had left town for Christmas Break! Puppet President Woodrow Wilson quickly signs it — creating the privately-owned Federal Reserve System. Weeks earlier, Wilson, after the necessary states had ratified the Constitutional Amendment establishing an Income Tax — needed to pay for wars and for interest to the bankers after they set up their Central Bank — had already enacted the new tax law. The counterfeiting, insider trading, loan sharking, Globalist Money Masters were now in control America, and have been ever since.
We’ll take whatever tax-relief crumbs that our oh-so-magnanimous masters will drop on the floor for us to nibble on. But can you just imagine the EXPLOSION of economic activity, investment and expansion of opportunity for all if we actually undid the great robbery of 1913 and returned to sound money, strong families and personal responsibility?
Oh if people only understood the kind of better life they are being deprived of by the Predatory Ruling Class!