On May 8, 1980, the 33rd World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization (WHO) officials declared smallpox eradicated (WHA33.3) with the statement ‘the world and all its peoples have won freedom from smallpox“…”Such an achievement is unprecedented in the history of public health.” [1, 3, 4]

The Global Commission for the Certification of Smallpox Eradication, which began in May 1978 and was led by Australia’s Frank Fenner, submitted their final report in December 1979.  The report contained two conclusions: “that smallpox eradication has been achieved throughout the world; and, second, that there is no evidence that smallpox will return as an endemic disease”. [5]

The acceptance, as public health policy, of a planned programme designed to eradicate a disease over a large geographical area was a new development.  The global programme on smallpox eradication was initiated by the WHO in 1958 (WHA11.54). In 1966, the 19th WHA requested that the director general of WHO launch a global programme to eradicate smallpox, from 1967 the international cooperation “intensified”. [5, 6, 7]

Dryvax, a smallpox vaccine, originally licensed in 1944 to Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. was used in mass vaccination campaigns. [2]

“Before 1967, the smallpox eradication strategy relied on mass vaccination. However, this strategy was ineffective in densely populated regions” so quarantine of the infected was used, and was effective as “most frequent mode of transmission was person-to-person, spread through direct deposit of infective droplets…”  In the end, only those close contact of smallpox case were vaccinated.

Cowpox (vaccina vaccine) inoculation coined the term “vaccination” which began 1798.  Historical records has revealed that for over 150 years mass vaccination campaigns failed to control smallpox, but seemed to prolong it’s incidence, sanitation and quarantine measures done more for reducing smallpox incidence.

On December 12, 1980 the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act otherwise known as the Bayh–Dole Act passed into law in the United States.  It is legislation dealing with intellectual property arising from federal government-funded research. Bayh-Dole permits universities to lay claim to all new ideas made in labs and research centers backed by federal funding—taxpayers’ money, instead of allegedly laying dormant when patents are assigned to the federal government. [1]  In short Federal officials can profit from patents in the specialties for which they are hired using tax-payer funds. [6]

“The idea was simple and straightforward. Create a single set of rules for all federal funding agencies to grant ownership of inventions to the universities and researchers that created them. With schools and researchers given the freedom to negotiate their license terms, more ideas would start to migrate from the lab to the market and in turn, provide economic growth.”

“Consider the fact that each year, NIH doles out $32 billion in grants to approximately 56,000 grantees”.  The NIH and it’s department directors control who receives that funding – they control/direct where “innovation” can occur!

Scientists could then license-out their patents to private companies, such as pharmaceutical companies if it was a drug/vaccine patent, and then personally receive royalties, all from their research which was funded by US taxpayers money – the intent to spur innovation!  The pharma company would then sell the “drug” back to the American people, the initial funders, at a premium.  [5]  An example being Dr Fauci receiving royalties on his patent ownership of AIDS medications! [3, 2]

But what about the inherent conflict of interest?  Especially if they’re the vary public health officials pushing vaccine mandates!  [4]

At the 38th session of the UN General Assembly held December 19, 1983, they approved [38/161] a May 23, 1983 decision adopted by the 11th Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme‘s (UNEP), thei resolution titled “Process of preparation of the Environmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond” [6].  UNEP recommended the UN establishment of a “Special Commission” to “make available a report on environment and the global problamatique to the year 2000 and beyond, including proposed strategies for sustainable development”  The report was to be completed “within a period of two years from its establishment.” [1, 2, 3]

The UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, appointed Gro Harlem Brundtland as Chair, The Special Commission (Intergovernmental Inter-sessional Preparatory Committee), which had adopted the name the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1984 (commonly known as the Brundtland Commission), began its work in May 1984. Over the next three years it held public hearings and studied the issues. [4, 5] and in 1987 the commission published their report titled Our Common Future, where they cemented the term “sustainable development”.   This document formed the basis for the 1992 first UN Earth Summit (UNCED).

Published in the June 1, 1984 US Federal Register, and on the back of the polio vaccine fiasco, the FDA made very clear their protective policy position on polio vaccines:

..any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives…the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it…

“Note: This policy was likely made in response to concerns that the specific polio vaccines which later paralyzed were not the ones that had been tested in the clinical trials. Sadly, the FDA’s “solution” was to simply stop testing all the vaccine lots.”

This position has carried over to all products categorised as a “vaccine”.  Any safety concerns have to be qushed, regardless of their validity, as it would lead to would cause vaccine hesitancy and threaten the “immunization” program. [1]

[Throughout history the medical establishment has failed to successfully treat infectious disease, they found some success with vaccines, and this lucrative narrative has prevailed and been their cornerstone.  Other successful natural treatments and modalities have systematically been deemed quackery!]

In 1986 the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science launched the Human Genome Project (HGP) to “understand, at the DNA level, the effects of energy production on human health”, justified becasue of the Hiroshoma bomb, but timed upon the emergence of “new DNA analytical tools”. [1]

• In 1990 the DOE partnered with NIH and officially launched the project.
• In 1994 the DOE launched the Microbial Genome Program to study to study the DNA of microbes and find “super bugs” to help the “DOE fulfill its missions” such as combatting CO2! [2]
• By 2003 the whole human genome was mapped, and concludes the project.  Out of the genome project the science of “Gene Therapy” and genetic medicine was born – The Genomic Age.

According to Dr Eli David every Deep Learning AI algorithm used in 2020, for vision, speech, text or cybersecurity, is based on an algorithm that dates back to an October 9, 1986 paper co-authored by Geoffery E Hinton.  The “back-propagation” algorithm is used for “training the neural net, for gradually updating the synapses of the neural network until it trains.”

The Fourth World Wilderness Congress (WWC) :Worldwide Conservation, the Proceedings of the Symposium on Biosphere Reserves was held in Denver, USA on September 11-18, 1987 [1, 2]

The 4th WWC involved 1600 delegates from 62 nations, among them Ms Gro Harlem Brundtland (Prime Minister of Norway) and Maurice Strong, David Rockerfeller, James Baker and Edmund de Rothschild. [4, 5, 6, 7]  “The conference ultimately revolved around the question of financing for the burgeoning environmental movement that Strong had shaped from the ground up through his work at the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).”

It was at this conference that Rothschild called for a World Conservation Bank, which he envisioned as the funding mechanism for a “second Marshall Plan” that would be used for third world “debt relief” and “sustainable development.” [6, 7, 8]

George Hunt came to learn that the New World Order refers to the coming boundary-less world as the fourth world wilderness!

On November 9, 1987, 24 days after the Montreal Protocol agreement, NASA’s director, Dr. James E. Hansen testifies as a “private citizen” to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resource, responding to their Nov 2, 1987 letter requesting he provide his “views on the likely pace and regional implications of the greenhouse effect and global climate change…” [1]

Hansen said NASA began their “climate simulations in 1958 when CO2 began to be measured accurately”, measurements of other trace gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and nitrous oxide “began more recently”, though their trends were estimated back to 1958. Hansen presented three “trace gas” scenarios from their global climate model running the predictions from 1958 through to 2030.

“The model says that within 20 years global mean temperature [of 15°C] will rise above the levels of the last two inter-glacial periods and the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past few hundred thousand years.” The graph he refers to is in the pivotal paper published November 1988, the beginnings of “Global Warming“.

“…at the present time in the 1980’s in a given month, there are almost as many areas colder than normal as areas warmer than normal…in a few decades from now it is warm almost everywhere.”

“The greenhouse effect is real, it is coming soon, and it will have major effects on all peoples.” Hansen stated, NASA “must have major improvements in our observations and understanding of the climate system”. Which would require funding!

In 1988 the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) was created within the FDA to regulate biological products, including blood, vaccines, tissue, allergenics, and biological therapeutics.

There was a merger of FDA Drug and Biologics departments on June 30, 2003 but vaccines and gene therapy products remained with CBER [1, 2]

On June 23, 1988, Dr James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Space Institute, gave testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources presenting his computer simulated climate warming findings which were published 2 months later, on August 20, 1988, in the paper titled “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies – Three-Dimensional Model“. [3]

This testimony, predicted man-made Global Warming through man-made greenhouse gas emissions that were warming the Earth’s atmosphere. They considered the combined effects of five greenhouse gases: CO₂, CFC11, CFC12, N₂O, and CH₄ and predicted, via computer simulations, a “warming of 0.5°C per decade”. [1, 2]

• This computer Model II CAN NOT be checked as NASA lost [3] the 1988 “source code“!
• Hansen also provided testimony as a “private citizen” 7 1/2 months prior on November 9, 1987, where he shares these same findings.
• Hansen testifies again to the House committee on July 7, 1988.

Six months later in December 1988 the UN IPCC is established

More on Climate Change – HERE

Dr Robert Malone developed the platform technology that allowed mRNA to transfer into mammalian cells, by packaging it in a liposome with a positive charge. A liposome is a lipid sac that can carry drugs or other substances like mRNA into cells.  This technology “induced a cellular immune response,” thus could be used as a vaccine.

Dr Malone’s patents contain “the first published research on mRNA vaccination” [1, 2, 3]

“In 1989, research was performed that gave rise to the groundbreaking patents on mRNA vaccination, all with a priority date of March 21, 1989. This is the same priority date as the Salk Patent application, showing that the two institutions were working together.”

Future lipid nanoparticle delivery systems are based on Dr Malone’s foundation technology.

The story of mRNA vaccine invention READ >>>

The history of drug and substance control in Australia can be traced back to before 1938, and through an evolution of changes led to the establishment in 1990 of the national Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA).  This Federal Department of Health regulatory body was set up to “safeguard and enhance the health of the Australian community through effective and timely regulation of therapeutic goods”, overviewing quality, safety and efficacy of therapeutic goods as a regulator and watchdog for both premarket and post-market pharmacovigilance. [1]

The birt of the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) took place at a meeting in April 1990, hosted by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations (EFPIA) in Brussels.  “Representatives of the regulatory agencies and industry associations of Europe, Japan and the USA met, primarily, to plan an International Conference but the meeting also discussed the wider implications and terms of reference of ICH.” [3]

ICH is a “joint initiative involving both regulators and industry as equal partners in the scientific and technical discussions of the testing procedures which are required to ensure and assess the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines.” [1, 2]

“Harmonisation of regulatory requirements was pioneered by the European Community, in the 1980s, as the EC (now the European Union) moved towards the development of a single market for pharmaceuticals. The success achieved in Europe demonstrated that harmonisation was feasible. At the same time there were bilateral discussions between Europe, Japan and the US on possibilities for harmonisation. It was, however, at the WHO Conference of Drug Regulatory Authorities (ICDRA), in Paris, in 1989, that specific plans for action began to materialise. Soon afterwards, the authorities approached IFPMA to discuss a joint regulatory-industry initiative on international harmonisation, and ICH was conceived.” [3]

Country medical regulators work closely with the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (IFPMA)

On October 23, 2015 the regulation of medicine becomes “truly global initiative” where the organisation becomes the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). [4]

From 2016 the WHO begins promoting Towards Access 2030 – which appears to be the precursor for a global regulator

The International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was established in September 1990 after more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York.  It was “conceived in 1989 when 35 local government leaders from Canada and the USA met with a leading atmospheric scientist to discuss the depletion of the ozone layer.” [2]

In 1991, the ICLEI wrote Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 including the mandate for all local authorities to prepare a “local Agenda 21.” The final version was approved at the Earth Summit and stipulated that “by 1996 , most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their population and achieved a consensus on a local Agenda 21 for the(ir) communities.” [3]

In 2003, ICLEI’s rebranded as ‘ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability‘ with a broader mandate to address sustainability issues. [1]  The World Secretariat moved to Bonn, Germany, in 2009.

“ICLEI was created to implement Agenda 21 through out the world”…”giving the illusion of local control, but it circumvents requirements for ratification of international treaties” says Rosa Koire in 2012. [3]

Today (2022) ICLEI is a global network of more than 2500 local and regional governments committed to sustainable urban development.

The Human Genome Project officially began in October 1990 with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institued of Health (NIH) publishing their plan for the first 5 years of what was projected to be a 15-year project in sequencing the entire human genome.  Feasibility discussions actually began December 1984. [2, 3, 4] The budget expanded as time went on.

The goals of the project included: mapping the human genome and eventually determining the sequence of all 3.2 billion letters in it; mapping and sequencing the genomes of other organisms important to the study of biology; developing technology for analyzing DNA; and studying the ethical, legal and social implications of genome research. [1]

The genome sequencing endeavour was conceived in June 1985 at UCSC and was launched in 1990, through funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Energy (DOE) and concluded April 2003.

Also in 1990 the U.S. Department of Energy funds climate change research, through the Global Change Research Act of 1990, November 16, 1990. [5, 6, 7, 8]

Fastforward to 2020 and genetic vaccines meets diseases said to be the result of climate change and population growth.

Timeline of Discovery HERE

On December 19, 1991 at the United Nations General Assembly the members adopt UN resolution 46/182, which called for stronger international leadership in response to complex emergencies and natural disasters as a result the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) was established. [1, 2]

OCHA’s Relief Web news site reports on relief activities such as profits made by mRNA COVID-19 vaccine manufactures while poor countries remain unvaccinated!

In response to the threat of species extinction caused by human activity and inspired by the world community’s growing commitment to sustainable development, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), led by Maurice Strong, convened the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversity in November 1988 to explore the need for an international convention on biological diversity. The UNEP established the Ad Hoc Working Group of Technical and Legal Experts to prepare an international legal instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. [1, 2, 5]

By February 1991, the Ad Hoc Working Group had become known as the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. At the May 22, 1992 Nairobi Conference the “agreed text” was adopted for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The CBD was opened for signatures on June 5, 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (the Rio “Earth Summit”) and by June 4, 1993 it had received 168 Member State signatures.   The Convention entered into force on December 29, 1993. [4]

Following the convention, they identified a need for “a practical tool for translating the principles of Agenda 21 into reality,” – The UNEP created the Global Biodiversity Assessment book which was published in 1995 by Cambridge University.  This book “takes Agenda 21 and breaks down what each Nation is going to look like to save the planet…it tells you what is not sustainable, and therefore needs to be limited or eliminated. [3]

On September 22, 1992, the US Congress passed H.R.5952, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which was signed into law October 29, 1992.  This Act allowed the pharmaceutical sponsor to “fund the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly through “user fees” intended to support the cost of swiftly reviewing drug applications. With the Act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer funded entity to one supplemented by industry money. The PDUFA fees collected have increased 30 fold—from around $29m in 1993 to $884m in 2016.”  PDUFA fee schedule is renewed every five years. [1, 2, 3]

New drugs have patents, which have a time limit before they expire, and research and development (R&D) costs cannot be recouped until a product gains regulatory approval.  The FDA estimated a 30 day delay could cost the drug sponsor $10 million, and the regulator already had a backlog of drugs awaiting approval.  A faster regulatory process was argued to be in the interest of the manufactures (lower cost to market), the regulator (fund more staff) and consumers (life saving drugs!). [1]

Spurred on by the AIDS and Cancer epidemics a presidential advisory panel on drug approval reported on August 16, 1990 that it “estimated that thousands of lives were lost each year due to delays in approval” and suggested it “should speed up approval of experimental AIDS and cancer drugs by requiring less evidence of the drugs’ effectiveness before they are put on the market”. [4, 5]

The regualtory staff are effectively hired by the pharmaceutical company to appove and market their products.

Between 1993 and 2003 the median approval time for priority New Drug Applications (NDA) and Biologics License Applications (BLA) decreased by over half — from 13.2 months to 6.4 months respectively, and standard approvals by one third from 22.1 months to 13.8 months.  They increased efficiencies “while holding to the same high standard of evidence for drug safety and effectiveness”. PDUFA funding enabled increased review staff numbers to increase FDA-sponsor interactions for scientific and regulatory consultation at a number of critical milestones through-out drug development prior to submission (fig 3.1). [6]

On December 7, 1995 the FDA approved Roche Laboratories’ saquinavir, the first of a new category of drugs called protease inhibitors designed to prevent the HIV virus from replicating, in combination with older nucleoside analogue medications such as AZT, it took the FDA only 97 days after the agency received the marketing application to grant the red light. [5]

In June 2020 the British Medical Journal (BMJ) asked six leading global regulators in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, the UK, and US, “questions about their funding, transparency in their decision making (and of data), and the rate at which new drugs are approved” and they found that “industry funding of drug regulators has become the international norm.”

In 1993 the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is created through the merger of the Industrial Biotechnology Association and the Association of Biotechnology Companies both small Washington-based biotechnology trade (and lobby) organizations, who hired Washington veteran Carl B. Feldbaum as their first president. In 1993 there were but a handful of biotechnology drugs and vaccines on the market and the human genome project was only recently begun.

BIO hosts the largest biotechnology annual event in the world, which “dates back to 1987, when the Association of Biotechnology Companies hosted an international conference in Washington, D.C., that exceeded expectations by attracting 155 attendees”, which grew to 1,400 in 1993 and 14,000 by 2001. [1]

• Early BIO timeline HERE
• BIO lobbies the FDA – WATCH, and helps support FDA‘s efforts! WATCH
• BIO is working to “combat” legislations/policy that doesn’t work in their favour of biotechnology and science, with Big Pharma as their funding partners.
• BIO targeting adult vaccination, to get everyone! – WATCH
• BIO making short films to influence opinion? – WATCH

Fast forward 2021 to the COVID-19 pandemic where a new bio-pharma mRNA injectable platform product was accelerated through the regulatory agencies under emergency use, where otherwise no regulatory pathway had been established for a gene therapy vaccine, this lobby group, “BIO”, who’s members include Pfizer, Moderna, Gilead and more, funded the “public health nonprofit” “innovative media” organisation called the Public Good Projects (PGP) in turn paid for pro-vaccine action and the take down of counter-narrative doctors and nurses. [2, 3]