In his final paper, the notorious British biologist Harold Hillman proclaimed that “cell biology is in dire straights”. That paper was published in 2011 and summarizes his life’s research (beginning in the 1970s), warning biologists and cell physiologists that something is seriously wrong with their understanding of the human body.
Now here we are in 2022. The majority of the world’s population have been coerced into taking an experimental gene therapy, many doctors have violated their oath to “do no harm” and countless, needless deaths have been caused as a result of both the injection and the draconian response to the alleged virus.
In Hillman’s words, modern medicine “is in dire straights”.
But how we did get here? How did we arrive at a point where natural cures are shunned in favour of expensive and dangerous pharmaceuticals? How is it that the majority of medical “experts” are willing to ignore the use of vitamins, minerals and other safe and proven treatments and instead endorse experimental and dangerous therapies?
Why do people continue to believe the pro-pharma propaganda expounded by the mainstream media, without the least bit of suspicion regarding the money and power afforded to technocrats and pharma elites promoting the drug-based medicine paradigm?
And how could it be that such a conspiracy exists? If Sars-Cov-2 didn’t exist, we’d know about it, right? If natural cures were effective, our doctors would prescribe them, right? If vaccines were dangerous, the CDC would tell us, right?
As they say, money makes the world go round. So let’s look at the world’s largest funders of health research to see if we can discern any reason as to why modern medicine has taken such a horrible and terrifying turn.
Health Research Funding – Where Does the Money Go?
First, it is necessary to understand where the majority of funds go for health research. For this, we’ll rely on an article published in Health Research Policy and Systems titled The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds.
According to the researchers, in 2013, the National Institute of Health (NIH) granted $4.8 billion dollars towards infectious disease research (including $113 million towards respiratory infections and $2.8 billion to HIV/AIDS research). They also gave grants to research involving cardiovascular disease ($1.9 billion), lung cancer ($208 million) and mental health ($2.1 billion).
The European Commission, Medical Research Council (MRC) and Wellcome Trust also direct the majority of their grants towards research involving infectious diseases.
A paper published in The Lancet, titled UK investments in global infectious disease research 1997–2010: a case study found that between 1997-2010, virology was the highest funded category of infectious disease research and the largest funders of such research in the UK were the Wellcome Trust (£688 million) and the MRC (£673 million).
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation also direct the majority of their “philanthropical” efforts towards combating infectious diseases, with less than 3% of their budget being directed towards non-communicable disease.
So what does all this mean? Well, it means that viruses are worth A LOT of money (and will continue to appreciate exponentially for obvious reasons).
Perhaps this explains why the claim that Sars-Cov-2 doesn’t exist is treated with such ardent censorship and disdain compared to the germ-friendly “lab-leak” theory which has now wormed its way into the mainstream narrative, supported even by those on the more alternative side.
Whether true or untrue, what many people fail to consider is the extent to which this theory favours the pharmaceutical industry.
In fact, not only does it favour Big Pharma, it favours the WEF hoaxsters by strengthening the “deadly virus” narrative, it favours vaccine manufacturers, it favours virologists, it favours the Western powers, it favours the bankers, it favours Hollywood, it favours the CDC, and it favours the WHO!
The “lab-leak” hypothesis favours just about every organization or group associated with the Covid scamdemic.
And let’s not forget that theories of mutant viruses escaping from laboratories certainly favour any researcher who could benefit from the massive amounts of money sloshing around in the kitties of the world’s medical gatekeepers.
But who are these gatekeepers who control, direct and manipulate medical research for control and profit? That is the main subject of this article.
1. The National Institute of Health (US)
According to healthresearchfunders.org, the National Institute of Health is the largest funder of medical research in the world. The institute spent more than $26 billion on health research in 2013.
Contrary to popular belief, mRNA injections are not a new technology. In the 1980s, the NIH awarded grants to researchers at the Salk Institute for research involving mRNA vaccine technology. In fact, it was the NIH funded research into “cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection” that set the foundation for decades of further work in the area.
It is not surprising, then, that the NIH has been ardently backing Covid-19 injections ever since news broke of their development.
In fact, the NIH owns half of the key patent for Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine, allowing them to collect royalties for each vial sold. Four NIH scientists have also filed their own patent, claiming to be co-inventors of the technology.
No doubt you’re wondering how such a flagrant conflict of interest could be allowed to occur. If so, you may be shocked to learn that the NIH’s regulations allow scientists to collect up to $150,000 in royalty payments every year for vaccines that they helped develop!
As stated by Robert F. Kennedy Junior in an article for Children’s Health Defense:
“NIH’s stake in the jab may explain why Anthony Fauci moved Moderna’s vaccine to the front of the line and to let Moderna skip animal trials despite the experimental technology and the inherent dangers of Coronavirus vaccines… It may also explain why Anthony Fauci arranged a $483 million grant to Moderna from a sister NIH agency, BARDA, despite the fact that Moderna has never brought a product to market or gotten approval.”
Furthermore, it was Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President) together with former NIH director, Dr Francis Collins, who colluded to suppress dissenting views on Covid-19 measures.
This was revealed thanks to a freedom of information request made by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) that turned up a cache of emails between Fauci and Collins. The two used their contacts in the media to squash the proposals made in the Great Barrington Declaration, calling for a “focused protection” solution to the Covid pandemic.
In an article for the Brownstone Institute, Jeffery Tucker reveals the tools used by the leadership of the NIH to manipulate public opinion and promote favourable narratives (favourable to them, that is).
“What do we learn from these emails? The attacks on tens of thousands of medical professionals and scientists were indeed encouraged from the top. The basis for the attacks were not scientific articles. They were heavily political popular pieces.”
2. The United States Department of Defense
Yes, it’s true. The United States Department of Defense is one of the largest funders of global health research. In fact, according to healthresearchfunders.org, they are the 6th largest funder, with health research expenditures exceeding $1 billion in 2013.
And when we’re talking about the DoD, we’re really speaking about DARPA, the “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency” who funded Moderna to the tune of $25 million in 2013.
Together with the NIH mentioned above, DARPA also funds Profusa, a Google-backed biotech startup currently developing injectable biosensor technology. According to Profusa, their biosensor tech can
“Measures tissue oxygen levels, provide potential indicators of human response to infection or exposure to disease in healthy volunteers”
The project is being carried out in partnership with Imperial College London, the same institute that has received significant funding from Bill Gates and the same institute that is responsible for producing the horrifically inaccurate epidemiological models that were used to directly influence public health policy around the Covid narrative.
Like the NIH, DARPA has been backing mRNA technology for some time. In fact, they began investing in the technology back in 2011, around the same time Bill Gates made his first investment in Moderna.
But their interest in gene therapy goes beyond vaccines. DARPA scientists are also looking at ways to use gene therapy for “enhancing a whole host of body functions by literally altering a person’s DNA with viruses or chemicals”. Lovely.
Another DARPA program, called ECHO is developing “diagnostic tests that measure the body’s response to viral infection rather than testing for the virus itself” and their SIGMA+ program is “evaluating the potential use of wearable technology to detect COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.”
3. The Wellcome Trust (UK)
The Wellcome Trust is a London-based scientific charity established with funds from pharmaceutical tycoon, Henry Wallace.
According to healthresearchfunders.org, the Wellcome Trust is the 7th largest funder of global health research, shelling out almost $1 billion in 2013.
Wellcome previously founded what is now one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical giants, GlaxoSmithKline, and today, the trust uses its $25.9 billion endowment for “philanthropical” purposes, including funding clinical trials, vaccine development and other health-related research.
Yes, one of the world’s largest funders of health research was not only established by Big Pharma money, but it founded one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical giants!
Even more worrisome is the Trust’s ties to the British Eugenics Society (now renamed the “Galton Institute”). Not only does the Wellcome Trust’s library house the British Eugenics Society’s archives, but many of their scientists go on to hold top positions at the Galton Institute. According to journalist Whitney Webb:
“Several top governance positions at the former British Eugenics Society, now the Galton Institute, include individuals who originally worked at the Wellcome Trust, including the Galton Institute’s president Turi King.”
She goes on to write that,
“The Galton Institute’s senior genetics researcher, Jess Buxton, was previously a “genetics researcher” at the Wellcome Trust and then went on to carry out independent research financed by Wellcome.”
Even the lead developer of the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine, Adrian Hill, leads a research group at Wellcome aimed at uncovering genetic susceptibilities to infectious diseases.
As the largest funder of virological research in the UK, and a backer of Oxford University’s Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research (set up through funding from GlaxoSmithKline!), the Wellcome Trust is the primary driver behind the UK’s vaccine network.
And as you might imagine, the Trust is not without its controversies.
In 2013, the Wellcome Trust funded a clinical trial to test a new TB vaccine in South Africa. Seven infants died as a result of the vaccine, which had already shown signs of toxicity during animal studies.
The parents consented to the trial after being given misleading information, including the statement that the vaccine “has been tested in animals and was shown to be safe and effective.”
To make matters worse, at the time of the trial, scientists at Wellcome had a financial stake in the jab.
An investigation carried out later by the British Medical Journal asked the all important question, whether universities (emphasis added) “are equipped or willing to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct against high profile academics who bring in substantial funding.”
In 2018, the Wellcome Sanger Institute, a genome research centre and a subsidiary of the Eugenics-linked Wellcome Trust was exposed for trying to commercialize a gene chip without consent from the hundreds of Africans who donated their DNA towards the project. Jantina de Vries, a bioethicist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, called Wellcome Sanger’s actions “clearly unethical. Full stop.”
4. The European Commission
The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European Union. The EC’s work is directed by a cabinet of commissioners and led by its President, Dr Ursula Von der Leyen (a close ally of Angela Merkel).
According to healthresearchfunders.org, the European Commission is the second largest funder of global health research, spending more than $3 billion on health-related research in 2013.
In a 2020 document titled “Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe”, the European Commission doubles down on its allegiance to Big Pharma and the drug-based medicine paradigm. After expounding the efficacy of gene therapies and vaccines, the report goes on to comment on how the EU plans to speed up regulatory approval for pharmaceutical products. The wording is characteristically vague, employing the usual buzz words.
“The Commission will evaluate procedures to explore new approaches to assessing scientific evidence for the safety and efficacy of medicines as part of the review of the legislation and seek to bring EU regulatory approval times onto par with those in other parts of the world. It will consider how infrastructure and adapted regulatory processes could leverage digital technology and artificial intelligence to support regulatory decision-making and increase efficiency.”
Most disturbing is the mention of artificial intelligence being integrated into the already-dubious regulatory decision-making process, a wet dream for the transhumanist technocrats, no doubt.
As mentioned previously, the President of the European Commission is Ursula Von der Leyen, the former German Defense Minister who has a history of dodgy dealings.
During her time heading up Germany’s military, she awarded a number of lucrative contracts to outside consultants without proper oversight. Investigators suspected that she and her officials awarded contracts based on their network of personal connections.
For example, according to Spiegel magazine, within four years of Von der Leyen taking over as the Minister of Defense, Accenture’s earnings from work with Germany’s military rose from €459,000 in 2014 to €20 million in 2018.
In spite of this, Von der Leyen was made head of the European Commission, and lo and behold, her shady behaviour continued. During the height of the Covid saga, Von der Leyen negotiated “the biggest contract ever sealed for COVID-19 vaccines” with Pfizer chief Albert Bourla, via text message.
The contract saw the EU committing to buy 900 million Pfizer-BioNTech shots, with an option to buy another 900 million after the EU had already brokered a deal for 600 million doses under two previous contracts.
In response to a later public request to view the messages, it was revealed that no record had been kept of the exchange. In other words, Von der Leyen had purposefully deleted the messages, indicating she was likely hiding something.
In December 2021, Von der Leyen said that the EU must consider mandatory vaccination in response to the “highly contagious” Omicron variant. At that time, there were a grand total of 59 Omicron cases in Europe, all of which either involved “mild symptoms” or were completely asymptomatic.
Ursula Von Der Leyen is married to Heiko Von der Leyen, descendant of the Von der Leyen German noble family. In September 2020, Heiko became the Medical Director for Orgenesis, a US-based biotech startup “working to unlock the potential of cell and gene therapy”.
Orgenesis is currently working on a number of projects, including developing their own Covid-19 vaccine!
Whether Orgenesis has links to Pfizer and whether Heiko’s promotion to Medical Director had anything to do with Ursula Von der Leyen’s shady text message exchange with Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, we’ll probably never know.
5. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) is an American-based nonprofit medical research organization. It was founded in 1953 by Howard Hughes, an American business magnate.
During the early days, the institute was set up as a tax haven for Hughes’s massive personal fortune and most of the money for the health institute came from the sale of air defence weapons to Western powers.
According to healthresearchfunders.org, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute is the 11th largest funder of health research in the world, spending more than $750 million on health research in 2013.
Noteworthy is that the institute has a longstanding collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation. It is wise for us to remember that it was the Rockefellers who promoted and funded the American eugenics movement. They were also instrumental in promoting the use of GMOs and other dangerous agritechnologies.
According to the Rockefeller University website,
“HHMI supports the research of Rockefeller faculty who have HHMI appointments with funding for salaries, supplies, equipment and laboratory personnel, including postdoctoral associates, technicians and administrative assistants.”
The HHMI employs a number of scientists, called “investigators”, and funds new research in the form of educational grants. Many of the HHMI investigators are involved in Covid-19 vaccine research (so, money well spent), and other genetic research involving CRISPR technology.
For example, in 2020, HHMI investigator Jennifer Doudna was awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for her work pioneering a new method of genome editing. Another one of HHMI’s investigators, Robert Horvitz, is an advisor to the Gates Foundation.
But that’s not the only connection the HHMI has to the Gates Foundation. In 2017, the HHMI, the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust all teamed up to sponsor “41 International Research Scholars, early-career scientists poised to advance biomedical research across the globe.”
Together they awarded a total of $26.7 million to these researchers in a move that clearly demonstrates how these large, “philanthropic” foundations collude to direct and manipulate global health research and influence the prevailing medical consensus.
Noteworthy is that the US Army, the Gates Foundation, the NIH, and the HHMI all fund the MIT Media Lab, the same institute that accepted funding from convicted sex offender and paedophile, Jeffery Epstein.
The MIT Media lab also houses Robert Langer, the co-founder of Moderna as well as Kevin Esvelt, the leader of “Sculpting Evolution”, a group developing gene editing technologies to “safely and humanely edit wild populations and ecosystems”.
Covid-19 Funding: a Deliberate Debt Trap?
Before concluding, it is necessary to draw attention to an important development in health funding that has taken place over the past two years. And that is the funding of the purchase of billions of Covid-19 injections.
As you may have guessed, the bankers are using this as an opportunity to pull countries into a debt trap, furthering their own wealth and control. The World Bank alone has committed to funding Covid-19 injections to the tune of $20 billion.
According to a report compiled by the humanitarian organization, CARE, titled Who Pays to Deliver Vaccines?
“86% of the funding in this analysis is in the form of loans. That gives countries debt that may weaken future pandemic preparedness rather than reinforcing health systems.”
What they’re really saying here is that the huge sums of money spent by world governments on procuring Covid-19 vaccines, and the huge sums of money they will have to pay back to the bankers for years to come, will hammer their economies so hard that the vaccines will end up weakening their health systems, not strengthening them.
Who would have thought?
Dictating the Medical Consensus and Socially Engineering the Scientific Culture
Researchers being paid for their efforts is a good thing and having money available for furthering our knowledge of disease and developing effective, life-saving treatments is a good thing.
However, when the vast majority of that funding is controlled and directed by a small number of groups that seem to be operating within a specific medical paradigm (i.e. one that is based on gene-editing, drugs and vaccines), it is time to question the motives behind the money.
If their funding is giving more power to pharmaceutical companies, furthering transhumanist technologies and undermining safer and more natural treatments, is it still a good thing?
In the paper cited earlier in this article titled The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds, researchers allude to this very issue.
“There is also a need for more debate about where the power to decide priorities for publicly funded health research should lie (with parliaments, ministries, funding agencies, or independent committees of experts). Such debate is needed because there are finite resources for investing in health research and thus priorities need to be set using fair and legitimate methods and using the best possible evidence.”
They go on to question the basis for funding decisions, stating correctly that
“In practice, public sector health research funding decisions are not only made on the basis of what research is needed, but are regularly influenced by other factors, such as political interests, advocacy and lobbying.”(emphasis added)
Thus health research funding may be viewed as a way of dictating the prevailing medical consensus and “socially engineering” the scientific culture to accept things like mRNA vaccines and drug-based solutions, whether or not they are effective, safe, affordable or ethical.
Now the next time you hear tales of mutant viruses escaping from biolabs and causing all manner of horror among the population, stop and think twice about how much money rides on that claim.