“A PCR-positive test alone can by no means confirm infection,” study authors confirm—yet the test is currently being used to justify government response to bird flu.
Only a small fraction of people who tested positive for COVID-19 by PCR in Germany met researchers’ criteria for infection, according to an October peer-reviewed study published in Frontiers in Epidemiology.
The findings come as PCR tests are being used to justify government response to avian influenza “bird flu,” including animal culling, countermeasures (vaccine) development, and gain-of-function experiments.
After analyzing nationwide laboratory data from March 2020 through mid-2021, the authors of the new study concluded that only 14% of PCR-positive individuals showed evidence of true infection, which they measured by later antibody development.
The remaining majority did not.
“Only approximately 14% of those who tested PCR-positive were actually infected.”
That means 86% of PCR-positive tests did not meet the authors’ definition of infection, calling into question the use of PCR positivity to count disease cases.
The study was conducted by researchers from multiple European universities and research institutes, examining data from Akkreditierte Labore in der Medizin (ALM), a laboratory consortium that conducted roughly 90% of all PCR testing in Germany during the period analyzed.
Rather than attempting to confirm individual infections through culture (showing evidence of physical, growing live virus in lab cells), the researchers compared weekly PCR-positive fractions with subsequent IgG antibody positivity, which they describe as the accepted biological marker of past infection.
“Since 1942, the detection of virus-specific antibodies has been regarded as the methodological gold standard for confirming infection.”
The logic of the analysis was straightforward.
If PCR-positive results were reliably identifying infected individuals, then PCR positivity should closely track the rise in IgG antibodies over time, given the mainstream virological and immunological model.
Instead, the researchers found that the PCR signal had to be scaled down dramatically to match observed antibody levels.
“Fitting the scaled cumulative PCR-positive fraction … yields PPCR ≈ 0.14 … This implies that roughly only one in seven German individuals with a PCR-positive test later had detectable IgG antibodies, that is, was actually infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
The article further notes that this 14% figure may still be an overestimate.
When accounting for possible testing biases, they state that the proportion of PCR positives representing real infections could be even lower.
“A more conservative interpretation of our results suggests that as few as one in eight or even in nine PCR-positive individuals … may have actually been infected.”
In other words, between 86% and 90% of PCR-positive results did not correspond to confirmed infection.
The paper emphasizes that PCR testing does not, by itself, diagnose infection.
“PCR tests merely detect the presence of fragments of viral genetic material, not necessarily an active infection.”
The study also identifies known sources of false-positive PCR results, including laboratory artifacts and statistical effects that become pronounced during mass testing.
“It is therefore important to highlight two known sources of false-positive PCR results.”
One cited example involves PCR-positive signals detected in water-only samples containing no virus at all.
“The Charité’s PCR assay produced positive results on water controls at cycle threshold (CT) values between 36 and 38.”
Beyond laboratory artifacts, the authors explain that even tests designed to be highly accurate at ruling out uninfected people can still produce large numbers of false positives when true infection levels are low.
In this context, “specificity” refers to how often a test correctly returns a negative result in someone who is not infected.
If specificity is less than 100%, some uninfected people will inevitably test positive.
“According to Bayes’ theorem, the rate of false positives increases when disease prevalence declines, owing to test specificity below 100%.”
Using observed positivity rates and their fitted infection estimate, the authors calculate that PCR specificity alone can explain the discrepancy between PCR positives and confirmed infections.
“Assuming 1% of tested individuals were true positives, a specificity of 94% explains the remaining 6% of PCR-positive results as false positives among the 99% who were not infected.”
The study’s findings have direct implications for how COVID-19 “cases” were counted and used in public policy.
Throughout the pandemic, PCR-positive test results were treated as proxies for infection and were used to justify restrictions and emergency measures.
PCR-positive test results are not being used to justify bird flu containment measures around the world.
The article argues this approach lacks biological grounding.
“A PCR-positive test alone can by no means confirm infection at the individual level.”
The paper concludes that Germany’s reliance on raw PCR positivity substantially overstated infection levels and distorted the understanding of the pandemic’s actual course.
“The principal finding from our analysis … is this: only 14%—and possibly even fewer, down to 10%—of individuals identified as SARS-CoV-2-positive via PCR testing were actually infected, as evidenced by detectable IgG antibodies.”
The article argues that PCR positivity was treated as infection when the data showed it overwhelmingly not.
By analysis, PCR positivity does not reliably indicate infection, raising questions about its continued use as a case-defining tool in current and future disease responses.
Is the “chilling” rise in flu cases nationwide attributable to PCR tests detecting vaccine RNA, not wild virus?
Mainstream news outlets are broadcasting that there is a “chilling” rise in flu cases, with Colorado, Louisiana, and New York experiencing the “fastest increases in influenza cases.”
However, the rise in cases follows flu vaccination campaigns in those states, which raises questions about vaccine efficacy.
But it also raises questions about whether the vaccinations themselves are contributing to the increasing case numbers.
For example, the New Orleans Health Department (NOHD) launched a flu vaccination campaign in early October.
NYC Health Department similarly launched an October push urging all residents 6 months and older to get flu shots.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) influenza webpage was updated the same month to promote flu vaccination.
These campaigns are meant to increase flu vaccine uptake.
Now there’s a rise in influenza cases, which are counted using positive PCR test results.
However, a March 2012 Journal of Medical Microbiology publication confirms the presence of residual viral RNA (genomic RNA—which PCR tests look for—from the influenza viruses used in vaccine production) in inactivated split-virus seasonal influenza vaccines.
One of the most popular injectable flu vaccines in the U.S., the formaldehyde-containing ‘Fluzone High-Dose,’ is an inactivated split-virus vaccine.
The 2012 study directly tested two 2010 trivalent inactivated vaccines (egg-based, similar in type to Fluzone) and detected high quantities of influenza A and B viral RNA using real-time RT-PCR on the vaccine liquid itself.
This RNA was stable, remaining detectable for at least 66 days after opening the vials.
Sequencing confirmed it included genetic components matching vaccine strains.
The study abstract reads:
False-positive PCR results usually occur as a consequence of specimen-to-specimen or amplicon-to-specimen contamination within the laboratory. Evidence of contamination at time of specimen collection linked to influenza vaccine administration in the same location as influenza sampling is described. Clinical, circumstantial and laboratory evidence was gathered for each of five cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) with unusual patterns of PCR reactivity for seasonal H1N1, H3N2, H1N1 (2009) and influenza B viruses. Two 2010 trivalent influenza vaccines and environmental swabs of a hospital influenza vaccination room were also tested for influenza RNA. Sequencing of influenza A matrix (M) gene amplicons from the five cases and vaccines was undertaken. Four 2009 general practitioner (GP) specimens were seasonal H1N1, H3N2 and influenza B PCR positive. One 2010 GP specimen was H1N1 (2009), H3N2 and influenza B positive. PCR of 2010 trivalent vaccines showed high loads of detectable influenza A and B RNA. Sequencing of the five specimens and vaccines showed greatest homology with the M gene sequence of Influenza A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 H1N1 virus (used in generation of influenza vaccine strains). Environmental swabs had detectable influenza A and B RNA. RNA detection studies demonstrated vaccine RNA still detectable for at least 66 days. Administration of influenza vaccines and clinical sampling in the same room resulted in the contamination with vaccine strains of surveillance swabs collected from patients with ILI. Vaccine contamination should therefore be considered, particularly where multiple influenza virus RNA PCR positive signals (e.g. H1N1, H3N2 and influenza B) are detected in the same specimen.
These are the exact substances PCR tests are applied to.
Another popular flu vaccine is FluMist, whose FDA package insert directly confirms uses a live virus that can be shed from bodily fluids for at least 28 days after vaccination, detectable with PCR tests.
All together, this data raises logical questions:
Are PCR tests detecting vaccine virus RNA, not wild virus RNA?
Is the nationwide rise in flu-positive PCR tests attributable, at least in part, to the detection of vaccine material?
Why haven’t the CDC or vaccine manufacturers directly tested this?
The framework openly describes “integration,” “merger of assets,” “united governance,” and decision-making during crisis—and sector failure as the basis for pandemic control.
A recent WHO-funded study published in Health Policy and Planning outlines in direct operational terms the governance model the organization expects countries to activate during an influenza pandemic.
For years, this website has been documenting avian influenza gain-of-function experiments and countermeasures development carried out by governments all over the world in an apparent instigation/orchestration of a coming bird flu pandemic.
The WHO-backed document is framed around influenza specifically, describing it as the catalyst for restructuring national systems into a unified, multisector authority.
The paper establishes influenza as the justification:
“Zoonotic influenzas have high pandemic potential, having caused four pandemics over the past 100 years.”
“We focus on zoonotic influenza because of the urgency to respond to the ongoing influenza panzootic and reduce its pandemic potential.”
From that premise, the authors build out a governance architecture designed to take effect during conditions of influenza-driven crisis, uncertainty, or sector failure.
Pandemic Conditions Are the Trigger for Reorganizing National Governance
The study defines the activation conditions for these multisector structures:
“MSPs rarely arise due to common goals. Instead, different actors come together under conditions of uncertainty, crisis, or sector failure—when no single sector has the knowledge or resources to address the challenge.”
According to the framework, a severe zoonotic influenza outbreak meets all of these criteria.
Under those circumstances, governments are expected to transition from sector-specific decision-making to coordinated, collaborative, and ultimately consolidated control.
The End-State Described in the Document Is Full Integration of Governance Functions
The study provides explicit definitions of the governance levels intended for pandemic response.
Under the “Consolidation” and “Integration” stages, the paper states:
“Integration—merger of assets.”
“United governance—All governance functions assumed by a single entity.”
In the context of an influenza pandemic, this means:
ministries of health, agriculture, environment, and related agencies no longer act independently,
their assets and budgets become pooled (“singularly resourced”),
operational outputs become unified (“singular production”), and
governance shifts to a single centralized command structure.
These are the document’s literal terms.
Influenza Response Under This System Extends Beyond Health Agencies
Because the authors tie their influenza governance model directly to the One Health Theory of Change, the sectors incorporated into pandemic decision-making expand far outside traditional public health.
The One Health scope is explicitly stated:
“Collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development.”
During an influenza pandemic, this framework places climate policy, food systems, water resources, agriculture, environmental management, and human health under a unified command structure, justified by zoonotic transmission risk.
The System Is Designed to Operate in a ‘Black-Box’ Manner
The study acknowledges that governance under this model lacks transparency:
“There is a black-box approach to the governance of MSPs around zoonotic influenza.”
The document offers no mechanisms for public oversight during such a consolidation.
Pandemic-Era Structures Are Intended to Persist After the Outbreak
The authors state that the same governance framework used during a pandemic should remain active between outbreaks:
“We expect the ToA to be used in preparedness and inter-outbreak periods when program managers have the opportunity for reflection.”
The governance model triggered by a pandemic is not temporary. It becomes the template for both emergency response and routine administration.
One Health Implementation Is Challenging in Normal Conditions—Influenza Creates the Opportunity
The authors note that One Health structures do not embed easily in “peacetime”:
“One Health remains difficult to implement in ‘peacetime.’”
In this context, a pandemic acts as the operational doorway through which One Health governance can be implemented.
Competing Sector Interests Are Expected, & the Framework Is Designed to Resolve Them Through Centralization
The authors acknowledge that different ministries and sectors have diverging priorities, especially during influenza outbreaks:
“Their ‘preferred outcomes’ likely promote their individual interests over shared goals.”
“The commercial, economic, and political dynamics of zoonotic influenza-related MSPs… have not always been addressed in operational guidance.”
The solution offered in the paper is to consolidate these interests under a unified authority rather than allow them to operate independently.
Conclusion
The study’s language is straightforward.
An influenza pandemic creates the conditions—crisis, uncertainty, and sector failure—under which national ministries are expected to merge their operations, assets, decision-making processes, and governance structures into a single integrated authority.
The resulting system extends far beyond healthcare, embedding climate, agriculture, food systems, and environmental management directly into pandemic command operations.
Supranational bird flu pandemic orchestration is well underway.
What follows is a documented sequence showing how the World Health Organization (WHO) seized operational control of the COVID-19 response from day one—and how it is now positioning itself to run the avian influenza pandemic the same way.
Will America follow the WHO into pandemic peril again?
The Timeline
On December 31, 2019, the Chinese government reported a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, Hubei Province.
On the same day, the WHO commandeered the international vaccine response, issuing its first “emergency use validation for a COVID-19 vaccine” emphasizing the “need for equitable global access” and declaring governments all over the world must “expedite their own regulatory approval processes to import and administer the vaccine”:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) today listed the Comirnaty COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for emergency use, making the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine the first to receive emergency validation from WHO since the outbreak began a year ago,” reads the organization’s Dec 31 press release.
“The WHO’s Emergency Use Listing (EUL) opens the door for countries to expedite their own regulatory approval processes to import and administer the vaccine. It also enables UNICEF and the Pan-American Health Organization to procure the vaccine for distribution to countries in need.”
“‘This is a very positive step towards ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines. But I want to emphasize the need for an even greater global effort to achieve enough vaccine supply to meet the needs of priority populations everywhere,’ said Dr Mariângela Simão, WHO Assistant-Director General for Access to Medicines and Health Products. ‘WHO and our partners are working night and day to evaluate other vaccines that have reached safety and efficacy standards. We encourage even more developers to come forward for review and assessment. It’s vitally important that we secure the critical supply needed to serve all countries around the world and stem the pandemic.’”
“Regulatory experts convened by (the) WHO from around the world and (the) WHO’s own teams reviewed the data on the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.”
(The) “WHO is working to support countries in assessing their [COVID vaccine] delivery plans and preparing for use where possible.”
“The emergency use listing (EUL) procedure assesses the suitability of novel health products during public health emergencies. The objective is to make medicines, vaccines and diagnostics available as rapidly as possible to address the emergency while adhering to stringent criteria of safety, efficacy and quality.”
“Once a vaccine has been listed for WHO emergency use, WHO engages its regional regulatory networks and partners to inform national health authorities on the vaccine and its anticipated benefits based on data from clinical studies to date.”
“As part of the EUL process, the company producing the vaccine must commit to continue to generate data to enable full licensure and WHO prequalification of the vaccine. The WHO prequalification process will assess additional clinical data generated from vaccine trials and deployment on a rolling basis to ensure the vaccine meets the necessary standards of quality, safety and efficacy for broader availability.”
The very next day, January 1, 2020, the WHO set up its IMST (Incident Management Support Team), putting the organization “on an emergency footing for dealing with the outbreak,” according to the WHO’s own published timeline.
On January 5, the WHO published its first “Disease Outbreak News” on the new purported virus, which represented a “flagship technical publication to the scientific and public health community as well as global media” and gave “a risk assessment and advice” to governments, public health officials, and the mainstream international scientific community.
A Pathogen In Silico
On January 7, the Chinese government claimed to have identified a brand new coronavirus as the causative agent of the outbreak.
On January 10, China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) publicly released what they said was the genetic sequence for the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen, named Wuhan-Hu-1.
The sequence was in silico only, meaning it was in a purely digital format shared on computers, as confirmed by Nature journal.
China said they produced the code from a sick man’s lung fluid using long-debunked (here) PCR technology.
Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, said in a 1997 interview (here) that his test should not be used to determine whether a patient is infected with a virus.
This is because the test “can find almost anything in anybody” if its parameters are set high enough, tainting the results.
“Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test. If you run it long enough… you can find almost anything in anybody,” he said. “It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.”
Without any deep, long-term analysis of China’s sequence, this in silico code was accepted by governments and the international scientific community, becoming the blueprint for every coronavirus vaccine.
Billions were injected with the code, whether in the form of Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA platform, or Johnson & Johnson’s and AstraZeneca’s immortalized-aborted-fetal-cell-based (HEK 293, PER.C6) viral vector vaccines.
Governments all over the world and Big Pharma manufacturers trusted China without question, despite warnings that China’s military had been exploring bioweapons development that integrates biotechnology and genetic engineering into a “new domain of warfare.”
No vaccinated person was given informed consent—never told these vaccines were based on a code produced by the Chinese government.
No COVID vaccine manufacturer has ever published the full genetic sequence of their COVID-19 vaccines on their own corporate websites or in standalone manufacturer-authored scientific papers.
No government or COVID vaccine manufacturer has ever published a genetic alignment between the spike protein their injections force the body to produce and the purported “wild” SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, in order to confirm the foreign protein our cells make post-vaccination is the “correct” one.
The University of Cambridge’s Medical Research Council (MRC) Toxicology Unit revealed that COVID vaccines cause the body to produce “rogue” proteins due to a “glitch” in the cellular process called ‘frameshifting,’ which stimulates an “unintended immune response in the body.”
No government or COVID vaccine manufacturer has ever published the full sequences of the plasmids used to make their injections.
Documents show that every defining structural anomaly of SARS-CoV-2—the furin cleavage site, the rebuilt human-binding motif, and the ACE-2-critical Q498 residue—matches specific pre-pandemic engineering plans and mutagenesis experiments documented in DEFUSE and earlier coronavirus manipulation studies (here, here, here, here, here).
Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the CIA, and Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) have confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic was likely the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation—implying billions were injected with a genetic drug that codes for a lab-altered spike protein structurally tied to the very experiments now implicated in the pandemic’s origin.
Pfizer’s own study data confirms over 1,200 diseases linked to COVID mRNA jabs, and the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) documents 38,773 COVID-vaccine-linked deaths and 1,666,646 adverse events—though these represent fewer than 1% of actual vaccine injuries, according to a federally funded Harvard Pilgrim study.
On the same day (Jan 10), the WHO began using the phrase “2019 Novel Coronavirus” or “2019-nCoV” to refer to the disease.
WHO Rubber-Stamps China’s COVID Sequence—Big Pharma & Int’l Scientific Community Obey
On January 11, the WHO announced that it had received the Chinese government’s SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequences.
On January 12, the WHO officially endorsed China’s in silico coronavirus sequence:
“On 11 and 12 January 2020, WHO received further detailed information from the National Health Commission about the outbreak,” a press release reads.
“WHO is reassured of the quality of the ongoing investigations and the response measures implemented in Wuhan, and the commitment to share information regularly.”
Vaccine developers, including those at Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, initiated vaccine design within hours of the sequence becoming available, and diagnostic assays were developed within days.
The transnational scientific community accepted the sequence, leading to immediate action in diagnostics, vaccine development, and surveillance, with minimal skepticism or delay.
On January 22, the WHO convened an emergency committee to assess the outbreak.
By January 30, it declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), advising all countries to prepare for containment, which included doomed social distancing and isolation measures, as well as the “rapid development and access” to vaccines.
WHO Declares a ‘Pandemic’
On March 11, the WHO became the first international body to officially declare the COVID-19 outbreak a global “pandemic” and, despite being a foreign and unelected body, began dictating what countries should do:
“We have called every day for countries to take urgent and aggressive action.”
Countries should “detect, test, treat, isolate, trace and mobilise their people in the response.”
“We’re calling on you to activate and scale up your emergency response mechanisms.”
“Communicate with your people about the risks and how they can protect themselves.”
“Find, isolate, test and treat every case and trace every contact.”
“Ready your hospitals, protect and train your health workers.”
“Countries must take a whole-of-government, all-of-society approach.”
“We cannot say this loudly enough or clearly enough or often enough; all countries can still change the course of this pandemic.”
“We are not suggesting to shift from containment to mitigation; we are not, we underline that.”
“All countries need to review their strategies right now.”
“Surveillance systems have to improve.”
“There’s no excuse to say that we cannot do this.”
“Countries must… take urgent and aggressive action.”
The Power & Peril of WHO-Dictated ‘Scientific Consensus’
In short, the WHO declared what would be the “scientific consensus” regarding COVID-19, and the international mainstream scientific community followed suit.
Because this mainstream supranational scientific establishment acted in lockstep with the WHO, there was no need for consent from the world’s citizenry or official government policy.
That’s the power of the WHO and internationally curated “scientific consensus,” no matter how fabricated and fraudulent that consensus might be.
The COVID pandemic proved that the WHO and scientific community—an infinitesimally small group of elite multinational agents—can make the world bend to their will.
After its two-year investigation into the COVID-19 pandemic, the Congressional Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic confirmed that the WHO’s draconian authoritarianism throughout the pandemic “was an abject failure,” writing:
“The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic—via a “Pandemic Treaty”—may harm the United States.”
But there is no need for a treaty, no matter how national-sovereignty-degrading, when the world’s public health leaders and self-appointed scientific elite unquestioningly carry out the WHO’s bidding.
Bottom Line
The WHO is right now orchestrating a coming avian influenza “bird flu” pandemic.
Simultaneously, governments all over the world are performing reverse-genetics gain-of-function (GOF) experiments on- and developing countermeasures (vaccines, etc.) for bird flu (see links below).
Just as they were before the COVID pandemic.
The Trump administration has been “actively participating” in WHO bird flu seminars despite the president’s January 2025 executive order to withdraw from the organization.
The admin’s $500 million ‘Generation Gold Standard’ platform is focused on bird flu vaccine development.
If the WHO repeats its COVID plan with avian influenza, we will see the same rapid lockstep activation of a prebuilt command system—instant acceptance of an unverified digital genome, accelerated vaccine deployment, suppressed dissent, and a global population maneuvered once again into mandatory genetic countermeasures before independent validation is possible.
U.S. officials and American citizens must decide now whether they will permit this system to run again, or whether they will finally impose the oversight and resistance that were absent the first time.
Unelected foreign body believes coronavirus still has the “capacity to trigger epidemics and pandemics.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released a “new strategic plan for the management of coronavirus disease threats,” according to a Wednesday press release.
The announcement comes after the WHO, with Gates Foundation funding, published its blueprint for a supranational digital ID system that tracks every person on Earth from birth, merges vaccine status with income, ethnicity, and religion, and deploys AI-driven surveillance to identify, target, and monitor entire populations.
Per today’s press release, the WHO wants to control how sovereign nations respond to “COVID-19, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and potential new coronavirus diseases.”
The plan “encompasses both routine management as well as emergency scenarios” involving the “emergence of a new coronavirus with pandemic potential.”
The unelected international foreign body emphasizes that the move represents “the first such unified plan.”
The goal is “sustained, long-term, and integrated management.”
WHO says it’s doing this in the name of “advancing integration, sustainability, and equity,” common globalist-tied tropes.
The plan is part of the organization’s “2025–2030” agenda for national health authorities to participate in an “action-oriented approach to managing coronavirus disease threats in the broader context of infectious disease management.”
WHO’s justification is the coronavirus’s alleged “capacity to trigger epidemics and pandemics.”
WHO insists that “uncertainties persist around virus evolution and long-term impacts of COVID-19.”
One WHO director explained that the plan also lumps in efforts regarding influenza, the pathogen that this website has been warning readers is currently being dangerously manipulated in government-funded laboratories all over the world.
The director urged government leaders to prepare for “future” pathogenic threats by falling in line with the WHO:
“Coronaviruses remain one of the most consequential infectious disease threats today,” said Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO Acting Director for Epidemic and Pandemic Management. “Integrating their management into broader respiratory disease and infectious threat prevention and control programmes, including for influenza, is essential. While each country will have its own approach tailored to its national context, WHO urges Member States to use the strategic directions set out in the plan to build resilient health systems that can effectively manage current threats while preparing for future ones.”
The WHO is expanding its CoViNet “sentinel surveillance” network, now comprised of 45 laboratories.
Eleven labs were added this year alone, signifying the magnitude of the operation.
“To strengthen global coronavirus monitoring, WHO has also expanded its Coronavirus Network (CoViNet), a network of disease surveillance programmes and reference laboratories for SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, and emerging coronaviruses of public health significance. CoViNet now includes 45 national reference laboratories across the human, animal, and environmental health sectors, with 11 laboratories added in 2025. CoViNet complements WHO’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS), which conducts global sentinel surveillance, including for SARS-CoV-2.”
Despite President Donald Trump’s January executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the WHO, CoViNet includes labs belonging to Emory University, Ohio State University, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In short, the WHO’s new “strategic plan” represents an international effort to centralize pandemic authority under an unelected foreign body, erode national sovereignty, override accountability, and collapse public-health decision-making into a global command structure.
And it comes even after President Trump formally withdrew the United States from the WHO, underscoring how deeply these surveillance and biosecurity networks remain embedded—and how ripe they are for further abuse.
Using “the same platform methods used for Pfizer’s COVID-19 and seasonal influenza mRNA vaccines.”
Researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Pfizer Inc. have created new, engineered H5 bird flu influenza genetic constructs, including a codon-optimized hemagglutinin (HA) gene with a synthetically altered cleavage site, as documented in a Saturday npj Vaccines publication.
According to the authors, the stated purpose of the study was to evaluate an mRNA-based H5 vaccine, which they describe as “a nucleoside-modified mRNA construct encoding the full-length, codon-optimized HA protein with the polybasic cleavage site deleted from A/Astrakhan/3212/2020 A(H5N8).”
The paper confirms that the engineered HA used in the study was genetically modified beyond its purported natural form.
Cleavage Site Optimized
The authors state that the cleavage site was synthetically altered, writing that the polybasic amino acids were “mutated from ‘REKRRKR’ to ‘RETR’.”
The cleavage site is like a switch that must be cut to turn the flu pathogen “on” so it can infect cells, and if this site can be cut by many types of enzymes in the body, the virus can spread more and cause worse disease.
LNPs for mRNA Therapeutics
The engineered constructs were then formulated into lipid nanoparticles following “the same platform methods used for Pfizer’s COVID-19 and seasonal influenza mRNA vaccines.”
The work was conducted by multiple CDC branches, including the Influenza Division, the Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, and the Office of Advanced Molecular Detection.
Pfizer Scientists at BSL-3 Lab
It was carried out by Pfizer scientists at the company’s Pearl River, NY facility, with additional involvement from ORISE.
The authors specify that “all research involving HPAI A(H5N1) viruses was conducted within Biosafety Level 3 enhanced (BSL-3E) or ABSL-3 facilities at the CDC.”
100% Transmission Rate
To test the performance of the engineered constructs, the CDC–Pfizer team conducted live-virus challenge experiments using human-derived H5N1 isolates.
The ferrets were infected with virus formations “A/Chile/25945/2023” and “A/Michigan/90/2024… from a farm worker exposed to infected cattle.”
Using these human isolates, the researchers documented efficient mammal-to-mammal spread, reporting a “100% transmission rate” in unvaccinated ferrets.
Funding & Conflicts of Interest
The funding disclosures indicate direct federal and corporate sponsorship.
The authors state: “This work was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by Pfizer Inc.”
The authors also disclose full corporate participation in the scientific process, writing: “Pfizer was involved in the design, analysis, and interpretation of the data in these research studies, the writing of this report, and the decision to publish.”
Additionally, the paper notes that Pfizer researchers associated with the project are “inventors on patent applications relating to influenza mRNA compositions.”
Bottom Line
The new study documents that CDC and Pfizer jointly engineered new H5 constructs through codon optimization and cleavage-site mutation, formulated them using Pfizer’s mRNA-LNP platform, and then tested them against recent human H5N1 isolates inside CDC BSL-3E laboratories.
The result is a federally backed, corporate-driven program in which U.S. authorities and Pfizer quietly engineered H5 influenza genetics and tested them with human-infecting H5N1—blurring the line between vaccine development and high-risk pathogen manipulation.
The dangerous experiments raise national security concerns.
Amid worries of a coming avian influenza pandemic.
A new study preprint published last week in the journal npj Vaccines describes a multinational research program that designed, engineered, and tested synthetic versions of the H5N1 bird flu virus’s hemagglutinin protein—one of the key components that allows the virus to infect cells.
The scientists altered these genetic sequences, delivered them into animals using advanced DNA and lipid-nanoparticle (LNP) technologies, and then conducted lethal challenge experiments with highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses inside a Canadian government biocontainment facility.
This means researchers created synthetic versions of a dangerous flu component, injected them into mice using vaccine-style technologies, and then exposed the animals to very deadly strains of H5N1 to test how well the constructs worked.
The study is authored by a large team from the United States, Canada, and Europe, including researchers from the Wistar Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the University of Bologna.
Funding Sources
The research was funded primarily by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) through its Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Centers (CIVIC) program under contract 75N93019C00051.
This is a federal vaccine-development initiative said to be designed to prepare the U.S. for future influenza outbreaks using rapidly adaptable genetic platforms.
But the creation of new viruses raises national security concerns.
Additional support came from the W.W. Smith Charitable Trust Distinguished Professorship in Cancer Research and The Jill and Mark Fishman Foundation.
In other words, the work was paid for by the same federal agencies responsible for pandemic vaccine programs, along with private biomedical foundations.
Institutions Involved
The experiments were carried out by a coordinated network of laboratories:
The Wistar Institute (Philadelphia) designed and built the synthetic H5N1 DNA constructs, performed immune studies, and conducted structural modeling using AlphaFold 3.
The University of Pennsylvania assisted with lipid-nanoparticle formulation and microbiology methods.
The Public Health Agency of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg performed the live H5N1 infections and lethal challenge experiments, including tests using a recombinant H5N1 virus constructed from synthetic gene segments.
The University of Bologna contributed additional biotechnology expertise.
The U.S. labs designed and built the engineered genetic materials, and the Canadian government lab carried out the dangerous live-virus testing.
The authors include: Ebony N. Gary, Nicholas J. Tursi, Casey E. Hojecki, Robert Vendramelli, Martina Tomirotti, Bryce Warner, Cory Livingston, Thang Truong, Yangcheng Gao, Sachchidanand Tiwari, Norbert Pardi, Darwyn Kobasa, and senior author David B. Weiner.
What Is Scientifically Alarming
Several aspects of this research stand out as high-risk from a biodefense perspective, even though the work is framed as vaccine development.
1. Synthetic Genetic Engineering of H5N1 Components
The team did not merely study existing viruses.
They engineered new synthetic versions of the H5N1 hemagglutinin gene, including codon optimization (which boosts expression in human cells) and deliberate modification of the protease cleavage site, a region strongly linked to H5N1’s virulence.
They edited the part of the virus that helps determine how dangerous it is.
2. Construction of a Recombinant H5N1 Virus From Synthesized Gene Segments
The researchers created a chimeric H5N1 virus by combining gene segments that were commercially synthesized and assembled from cloned DNA.
They then rescued this artificial virus using reverse-genetics techniques.
This means they built a new lab-made version of H5N1, piece-by-piece, using artificial DNA.
3. Use of LNP Delivery and Electroporation to Express Viral Genes Inside Animals
The study delivered the synthetic HA genes using LNPs (the same technology used in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines) and electroporation, a technique that uses electrical pulses to force genetic material into cells.
Both approaches greatly increase how efficiently engineered genetic material can spread through tissues.
These tools make it much easier for lab-designed genetic material to take hold inside the body.
4. Lethal Challenge Work Using High-Dose H5N1
Mice were exposed to 10 times the lethal dose (10 LD50) of highly pathogenic H5N1 strains—including both natural isolates and the lab-built recombinant virus.
They infected animals with very large amounts of a deadly virus to test whether the synthetic constructs gave protection.
5. Corporate Ties of the Senior Author
The senior scientist, David B. Weiner, discloses paid relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Inovio, Flagship, and others.
This means the research directly intersects with large pharmaceutical companies that develop genetic vaccines and related technologies, raising conflicts of interest worries.
Why This Matters for Policymakers
This study demonstrates that federal funding is supporting research with clear dual-use potential, meaning it could advance vaccines or, if misapplied, enable the construction or enhancement of dangerous influenza viruses.
The same techniques used to create synthetic vaccine antigens—codon optimization, cleavage-site modification, LNP delivery, and recombinant virus assembly—can also be used to create novel viral strains with properties that do not currently exist in nature.
The technical sophistication is notable, especially the deliberate editing of cleavage sites and the full reconstruction of an H5N1 virus from cloned fragments, which is uncommon outside of specialized influenza-engineering programs.
This work shows that laboratories funded by the U.S. government and partnered with foreign agencies are actively engineering pieces of dangerous bird flu viruses and testing them in high-security facilities.
The stated goal is to develop better vaccines, but the methods overlap with techniques traditionally associated with gain-of-function research, which can create new biological risks if not tightly controlled.
A Thursday npj Vaccines study confirms U.S. federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funded the laboratory creation of genetically engineered two influenza viruses (H9N2/H5N2) built from plasmids, artificial gene fusions, synthetic insertions, and modified genome segments.
The work was carried out by researchers at the University of Georgia, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and the U.S. National Poultry Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
The authors listed on the study are: “Flavio Cargnin Faccin, L. Claire Gay, Dikshya Regmi, Robert Hoelzl, Teresa D. Mejías, Darrell Kapczynski, Florian Krammer & Daniel R. Perez.”
The study’s funding confirms direct federal involvement.
“Funding for this work includes grants… National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grant award numbers 2021-67015-33406 and 2024-67015-42736, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Contract number 75N93021C00014.”
Construction of the Engineered Viruses
The researchers did not isolate a purported virus from nature.
They built new viruses entirely through reverse genetics, using plasmid DNA transfected into human and dog cell lines.
The paper states: “Recombinant viruses were rescued by reverse genetics using the 8-plasmid system and helper plasmids in a coculture of HEK293T and MDCK cells.”
The process is described explicitly.
According to the authors, “1 µg of each plasmid was mixed… and used to overlay the cell coculture.”
Viral stocks were then expanded artificially rather than occurring naturally, as the study reports: “Viral stocks were generated in 10-day-old specific pathogen-free (SPF) eggs.”
These details confirm that the viruses were constructed in the laboratory, rescued from DNA, and amplified in eggs.
‘Chimeric’ Pathogens
The viruses created under USDA and NIH funding are laboratory-assembled chimeras—genomes stitched together from engineered parts that do not exist in nature.
The study shows that two influenza proteins were fused into a single artificial gene, something no wild virus carries.
As the authors write: “Segment 2 was modified to encode a chimeric PB1-M2 open reading frame (ORF) separated by a glycine-glycine-glycine-glycine-serine (G4S) spacer.”
This forces the virus to make an unnatural hybrid protein.
To ensure the virus depends on this man-made fusion protein, its normal version of M2 was deliberately shut off.
The paper states: “Segment 7 was modified by introducing multiple early stop codons in the M2 ORF via site-directed mutagenesis to prevent its expression.”
This eliminates the native M2 and locks the virus into the engineered design.
The researchers also inserted a synthetic 58–amino acid sequence into the HA segment, including an artificial peptide not found in any influenza strain.
The methods describe this as: “Segment 4… was modified to insert a 58-amino-acid-long sequence… which included the unique 8-amino-acid peptide… ‘DRPAVIAN.’”
Another modification swaps out the cleavage site of an H5 virus and replaces it with one taken from a human 1934 H1N1 strain, altering how the virus activates inside host cells.
The authors state: “The H5 HA HPAI cleavage site was replaced with that of the A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1) (PR8) strain.”
Finally, the virus was engineered to manufacture a chicken immune-signaling molecule from inside infected cells.
The study confirms: “The mature protein-coding sequence of chicken IL-18… was subcloned in frame with the NA ORF.”
These combined changes—fusion genes, disabled native proteins, synthetic inserts, human-strain cleavage sites, and cytokine-expression modules—create a virus with properties that no purported natural influenza lineage carries.
Aerosol Exposure in Animals
The researchers then exposed day-old chickens to the engineered viruses through aerosolized live-virus delivery.
The methods describe this process clearly, all done within BSL-3 lab conditions:
“One-day old SPF White Leghorn chickens… were vaccinated via aerosol using an aerosol chamber… A 5 mL volume of MLV-H9N2-IL was loaded into the Aeroneb lab nebulizer, resulting in an average exposure of 1×10⁶ EID50/chicken… The exposure lasted for 15 min.”
This confirms that the USDA- and NIH-funded engineered viruses were not only constructed but also introduced into animals through airborne delivery.
Bottom Line
The study documents how U.S. federal agencies oversaw the full laboratory assembly of engineered influenza viruses—built from plasmids, redesigned through reverse genetics, and altered with fusion genes, stop-codon knockouts, synthetic peptide insertions, cytokine-expression modules, and foreign cleavage sites.
These are not environmental isolates; they are fully man-made constructs created inside U.S. government and university laboratories under USDA and NIH funding.
The viruses were then delivered to live animals by aerosol, demonstrating not only construction capability but functional deployment.
Work of this nature carries obvious national-security implications: it establishes the technical capacity to design, modify, and disseminate engineered influenza strains whose properties cannot be predicted from any purported natural lineage.
In a stunning exchange on the PBD Podcast (Episode 690), U.S. Commissioner of Food and Drugs (FDA) Dr. Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon, dropped two bombshell admissions about pathogen origins—one about HIV, the other about Lyme disease.
Dr. Makary openly entertained the possibility that HIV “may very well have come from a lab in Africa,” saying the film Thank You, Dr. Fauci “explore[s] a non-traditional narrative, which has not gotten the attention it deserves.”
HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is said to be a retrovirus that targets and destroys CD4 T cells in the immune system, weakening the body’s ability to fight infections and potentially leading to AIDS if untreated.
When asked where Lyme disease originated, Makary answered directly: “I can tell you with a high degree of probability. It came from Lab 257 on Plum Island.”
Lyme disease is a bacterial infection caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, transmitted through bites from infected blacklegged ticks, often marked by an expanding “bull’s-eye” rash, fever, fatigue, and joint pain.
The head of the FDA has admitted that two major diseases originated not in nature, but in government laboratories, raising questions about other disease origins.
HIV: ‘It May Very Well Have Come from a Lab in Africa’
Makary described how mainstream institutions avoid uncomfortable evidence about HIV’s beginnings.
When pressed on the origin of AIDS, he said the following:
“They explore a non-traditional narrative, which has not gotten the attention it deserves. And that is that it may very well have come from a lab in Africa.”
Makary is one of the most publicly visible medical figures in the United States—Hopkins professor, long-time NIH-funded surgeon, and prominent FDA advisor.
His admission directly contradicts decades of official insistence that HIV was unquestionably a zoonotic spillover.
Lyme Disease: ‘It came from Lab 257 on Plum Island’
When the conversation turned to Lyme disease—which afflicts millions of Americans—Makary said:
“I can tell you with a high degree of probability. It came from Lab 257 on Plum Island just outside of Connecticut, 25 miles from Lyme, Connecticut, where the first case was described.”
He then explained how he knows:
“First of all, you can read the book Bitten. It’s a great book.”
And he explained who the U.S. brought to Plum Island after WWII:
“When the Nazi war criminal doctors were executed in Nuremberg, at least one of them was spared and brought to the United States so that his mind could be used by the US military for so-called Biodefense. And they put him on Plum Island and he had said very openly that he believed an incredible form of biowarfare was infecting ticks. And that that’s what Lyme disease is.”
Makary is referring to the notorious Erich Traub, the Nazi bioweapons scientist recruited by U.S. military intelligence.
“A bunch of mad scientists doing things… How many physicians know that it came from Lab 257? Approximately 1%.”
He ended with the warning that the public health establishment refuses to confront:
“Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it. And sometimes we can cause more harm than we can good by messing with Mother Nature.”
Once the FDA commissioner concedes that two major diseases came from government labs, the narrative of “natural outbreaks” collapses on its own.
The only thing left to find out is how far these patterns go.
As countries engineer avian influenza bird flu pathogens without restraint.
The World Health Organization and Egypt’s Ministry of Health just completed a national-scale workshop training nearly 300 surveillance officers to expand real-time monitoring of influenza and other respiratory pathogens across the country.
The move comes as this website has been tracking multiple governments performing gain-of-function experiments on avian influenza “bird flu” pathogens (see below this article), raising worries of another orchestrated, man-made pandemic.
The WHO announcement frames the workshop as routine and annual, masking the scale of the expansion and the integration of surveillance functions under WHO guidance.
“The annual meeting and accompanying workshop on integrated surveillance of acute respiratory infections (ARIs), conducted by the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Country Office in Egypt, brought together around 270 public health professionals.”
More than a simple “meeting,” this represents a consolidation of a national respiratory surveillance grid.
Two hundred and seventy surveillance officers trained at once sounds more like a deployment than a workshop.
The framing as “annual” makes the expansion appear normal and non-threatening when, in reality, it marks a significant expansion of WHO’s operational footprint inside Egypt’s health system.
Thirty Sentinel Sites Feeding a Unified National Surveillance Grid
The announcement identifies the personnel being trained, revealing a full-spectrum surveillance workforce (epidemiology, clinical staff, data specialists) rather than a narrow set of influenza experts.
“The participants, all involved in surveillance, included epidemiologists, data officers, physicians, nurses and laboratory specialists drawn from 30 ARI sentinel sites across 15 governorates.”
This proves the surveillance integration is nationwide.
“Sentinel sites across 15 governorates” means Egypt’s surveillance network is now being unified under a single reporting system.
Bringing in data officers signals the transition to real-time digital surveillance and automated reporting pipelines that feed directly into WHO’s global systems.
A Surveillance Framework That Never Powers Down
The WHO announcement reveals the core mission: strengthen surveillance for influenza and all respiratory viruses—not limited to outbreaks or emergencies.
“The sessions aimed to strengthen national capacities in disease surveillance for influenza and other respiratory viruses and improve preparedness for respiratory disease threats, particularly those with pandemic potential.”
They want to treat all respiratory viruses—seasonal or otherwise—as potential triggers for global coordination.
The phrase “other respiratory viruses” quietly expands surveillance beyond influenza to include COVID, avian flu, MERS, and any future pathogen, making continuous monitoring the norm.
This is how perpetual surveillance infrastructures are justified.
The workshop covers multiple pathogen classes, including zoonotic viruses, merging animal-origin threats with routine respiratory surveillance.
“The discussions covered a wide range of topics, including updates on the global and national epidemiological situation of influenza, COVID-19, avian influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and zoonotic respiratory infections.”
So the system is designed to take in constant “signal noise” from zoonotic sources—livestock, poultry, wildlife.
Zoonotic data is always active, which means alert conditions can always be justified.
Folding zoonotic viruses into human surveillance pipelines is a central feature because it guarantees a steady stream of “pandemic potential” warnings.
WHO Uses ‘Performance Evaluations’ to Enforce Surveillance Compliance
The announcement describes the unification and standardization of national operating procedures, indicating that Egypt’s surveillance mechanics are being aligned directly with WHO standards.
“Participants reviewed standard operating procedures for ARI and influenza-like illness (ILI) sentinel surveillance and laboratory operations, alongside findings from performance evaluations.”
The mention of “performance evaluations” means WHO is grading Egypt’s compliance with global surveillance standards.
The evaluations will serve as a mechanism for harmonizing Egypt’s protocols with WHO’s prescribed methods.
This is an oversight structure.
Once surveillance is standardized, WHO essentially co-authors the national surveillance workflow.
Building the Digital Backbone of a Permanent Respiratory Surveillance State
The WHO press release goes on to introduce the digital component—data integration, dashboards, and real-time reporting—showing that Egypt’s network is being plugged into a centralized digital surveillance architecture.
“They explored how digital tools and platforms can enhance ARI data quality and timeliness and discussed data reporting through the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS) and the ARI/ILI Power BI dashboard which are used to collect, analyse and visualize respiratory surveillance disease data.”
The system they’re describing allows centralized ingestion of respiratory data across Egypt, instant analytics, automatic WHO reporting, and algorithmic signal detection.
The Power BI dashboard represents the command interface of a national respiratory surveillance grid.
This is the infrastructure required for automated “health security” triggers, border protocols, and potential digital health certifications.
PRET: WHO’s Framework for Perpetual Surveillance, Now Active in Egypt
The WHO directly names PRET, acknowledging that Egypt is now being operationally aligned with WHO’s new global framework that replaces traditional outbreak response with permanent readiness.
“The sessions also covered WHO’s Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats (PRET) framework, an innovative approach designed to improve countries’ pandemic preparedness, emphasizing its alignment with Egypt’s national health security priorities.”
PRET is the system designed to bypass the need for treaty ratification by embedding WHO frameworks in national systems through “technical assistance.”
Once PRET is integrated, WHO gains operational influence during any declared emergency.
Naming PRET outright signals that Egypt’s infrastructure is now being shaped to meet PRET’s requirements for sustained respiratory surveillance and rapid WHO-driven response.
Bottom Line
Egypt’s new WHO-guided influenza and respiratory surveillance upgrade is a quiet rollout of PRET—a framework that centralizes global respiratory monitoring under WHO standards and feeds constant influenza, COVID, bird flu, MERS, and zoonotic signals into real-time digital dashboards.
This turns “preparedness” into a perpetual surveillance regime, where respiratory data becomes the trigger for future restrictions, emergency declarations, and global coordination.
What makes the timing more concerning is that these surveillance expansions are happening as multiple governments continue engineering avian influenza viruses with pandemic traits—yet none of these programs are being halted.
PRET ensures the monitoring grid is in place before the next laboratory-engineered pathogen emerges.
With 270 surveillance officials trained across 30 sentinel sites, Egypt’s national system is now synced to WHO’s operational architecture.
And this same PRET-aligned model is being replicated country by country, building a global respiratory surveillance system that never powers down.
A newly published PLOS Global Public Health paper confirms that researchers were already running multinational experiments to measure how quickly populations could be moved toward COVID-19 vaccination before any product had been authorized.
The authors state clearly:
“We recruited the respondents in late November 2020… before any [vaccines] were officially approved by a government.”
This places the experiment at a time when the public had no approved vaccine, no final safety data, and no access to Phase 3 trial results.
Yet the study was already testing which institutions—WHO, CDC, Oxford, or the Gates Foundation—were most effective at accelerating public willingness to accept a future vaccine.
The Experiment Focused on Uptake Speed, Not Evidence
The survey’s main outcome variable was not clinical.
It was the speed of compliance:
“Respondents were given five options to express whether and when they would choose to get vaccinated if a vaccine were available at no cost. These options were: ‘Yes, within a month,’ ‘Yes, within 2-3 months,’ ‘Yes, within 4-12 months,’ ‘Yes, after a year,’ and ‘No, never.’”
Those responses were then collapsed into:
“early” (within 3 months)
“middle” (4–12 months)
“late,” which includes “never”
The paper describes vaccine hesitancy entirely in terms of “delay”:
“WHO endorsements, alongside the three other public health organizations examined in this study, are associated with a statistically significant, cross-national reduction in vaccine hesitancy, measured as the delay between vaccine availability and willingness to receive it. Our timing-based measure is a meaningful, yet under-studied, dimension of vaccine uptake that directly speaks to the urgency of public health communication during a pandemic.”
The study did not attempt to measure why individuals might wait for more data or how safety information influences decisions.
Hesitancy was defined only as slowness to accept.
Endorsements Were Randomized to Test Which Authority Moves People Faster
The authors explain that each participant was shown randomized vaccine profiles with or without endorsements from major institutions:
“Our experiment randomly varied exposure to vaccine endorsement information from several prominent global health governance players, including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Oxford University, and the Gates Foundation.”
The goal was to quantify the effect of each authority on changing timing behavior:
“WHO endorsements increase individuals’ willingness to get vaccinated more quickly.”
This design treats institutional influence itself as the variable of interest, not the vaccine.
“[T]rust in scientific authorities, including the WHO, positively correlates with increased public willingness to engage in recommended health practices, such as COVID-19 vaccination and compliance with preventive measures.”
The Paper Acknowledges the Experiment Took Advantage of High Uncertainty
The authors state that their framework relies on the public’s vulnerability during uncertain periods:
“During a novel pandemic, significant uncertainty drives individuals to seek expert guidance on preventive measures such as vaccination.”
The experiment uses that uncertainty to measure which voice is most persuasive.
WHO Was Most Effective When It Spoke Early, Before Other Actors
One of the clearest findings is that WHO’s influence is strongest when it is the first or among the first endorsers:
“The WHO has the greatest impact when it is the first (or among the first) of many organizations to endorse a vaccine.”
And that power drops once other organizations join in:
“[T]he impact of WHO endorsements decreases as additional endorsements from other reputable global health actors emerge.”
The authors explicitly describe this as substitutability, meaning WHO’s influence is higher only when information from other actors is absent.
The Study Also Examined How Endorsements Help Drive Uptake of ‘Low-Quality’ Vaccines
A section of the paper focuses on vaccines with:
50% efficacy,
1-year protection duration,
1 in 10,000 severe side-effect rate,
1 in 30 mild-side-effect rate,
which the authors classify as low-quality vaccines.
The paper states:
“[I]t is crucial to examine the influence of WHO endorsements specifically for lower-quality vaccines, as vaccination intentions for these vaccines are likely to be more sensitive to credible endorsements.”
Their simulation results showed:
“[F]or low-quality vaccines… When people are receptive to WHO endorsements, we observe a distinctly higher vaccination rate over time.”
This shows the study’s purpose was not limited to hypothetical best-case vaccines.
The authors tested how institutional messaging can increase uptake even when vaccine performance is weak.
The Authors Describe Their Work as Global-Level Persuasion Research
Throughout the paper, the focus is on influence, not clinical evaluation:
“This study investigates the influence of World Health Organization (WHO)’s endorsements…”
Endorsements “can accelerate vaccination intentions” and “significantly reduce vaccine hesitancy.”
And the authors frame the absence of evidence as an opportunity:
“During a novel pandemic, significant uncertainty drives individuals to seek expert guidance on preventive measures such as vaccination.”
Rather than studying data quality or risk–benefit communication, the study treats this moment of uncertainty as the condition under which endorsement effects can be most accurately measured.
Conclusion
The record in PLOS Global Public Health shows that researchers in Canada, Japan, and the United States were already measuring which institutions could most effectively accelerate COVID-19 vaccine uptake—for low-quality vaccines—in November 2020, prior to any approved product.
The experiment centered on how quickly people could be influenced to vaccinate, how endorsement messaging changes compliance timing, and how those effects behave under uncertainty or when evaluating lower-quality vaccines.
Every element of the study was built around institutional persuasion.
Not safety, not efficacy, and not informed consent.
When institutions are tested for their ability to speed compliance before safety data even exists, the line between public health guidance and psychological manipulation becomes impossible to ignore.
“Because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has officially declared that there is no evidence to support the claim that vaccines do not cause autism.
Yesterday, the CDC published these historic words:
The claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.
The claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.
HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.
In an instance of welcome self-reflection and honesty, the CDC announcement went on to admit that the unscientific claim “has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy.”
And in an apparent course correction, CDC announced that “HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism.”
This will include “investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.”
CDC went on to explain how the rise in autism correlates with the rise in the number of childhood vaccinations:
It is critical to address questions the American people have about the cause of autism to ensure public health guidance is adequately responsive to their concerns. Approximately one in two surveyed parents of autistic children believe vaccines played a role in their child’s autism, often pointing to the vaccines their child received in the first six months of life (Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTaP), Hepatitis B (HepB), Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), Poliovirus, inactivated (IPV), and Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV)) and one given at or after the first year of life (Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)). This connection has not been properly and thoroughly studied by the scientific community.
In 1986, the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule for infants (≤ 1 year of age) recommended five total doses of vaccines: two oral doses of oral polio vaccine (OPV) and three injected doses of Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis Vaccine (DTP). In 2025, the CDC schedule recommended three oral doses of Rotavirus (RV) and three injected doses each of HepB, DTaP, Hib, PCV, and IPV by six months of age, two injected doses of Influenza (IIV) by 7 months of age, and injected doses of Hib, PCV, MMR, Varicella (VAR), and Hepatitis A (HepA) at 12 months of age.
The rise in autism prevalence since the 1980s correlates with the rise in the number of vaccines given to infants. Though the cause of autism is likely to be multi-factorial, the scientific foundation to rule out one potential contributor entirely has not been established. For example, one study found that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines had the highest statistical correlation with the rise in autism prevalence among numerous suspected environmental causes. Correlation does not prove causation, but it does merit further study.
HHS is now researching plausible biological mechanisms between vaccines and autism.
HHS will evaluate plausible biologic mechanisms between early childhood vaccinations and autism. Mechanisms for further investigation include the impacts of aluminum adjuvants, risks for certain children with mitochondrial disorders, harms of neuroinflammation, and more.
CDC provided a chart showing that across three decades of U.S. government reviews, federal agencies (IOM and AHRQ/HHS) have repeatedly concluded that the evidence is insufficient to confirm or rule out a causal link between DTaP/DTP/Tdap/Td vaccines and autism.
The CDC’s newfound scientific approach to autism’s link to vaccines comes after a large McCullough Foundation meta-analysis of 136 studies concluded that childhood vaccination—especially cumulative, clustered, and early-timed dosing—is the strongest modifiable risk factor for autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
After decades of denial, the CDC under the Trump administration and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has finally taken the first responsible step toward scientific honesty by admitting that vaccines have never been definitively ruled out as a cause of autism.
This is perhaps the strongest decision the agency has made in years.
By abandoning the unscientific slogan and acknowledging the unanswered questions, the CDC has opened the door to the kind of rigorous investigation that should have been undertaken long ago.
For the first time, federal health authorities are conceding that parents’ concerns are legitimate, that autism’s rise demands real answers, and that the expanding vaccine schedule must be scrutinized—not protected.
If the agency continues down this path, the CDC may finally reclaim what it has lacked for a generation: credibility.
We look forward to the CDC being equally honest about COVID-19 vaccines.
fox files 
Recent Comments