A Suzerain is a Superior Feudal Lord to whom fealty is due – an Overlord. A Suzerain is a dominant power controlling the foreign relations of a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs.
This post needs to be read in conjunction with Twas the NICE Before Christmas.
The leaders of G7 (US, UK, France, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Japan along with a representative of the EU), and other powerful people, like Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, met in England in 2021. A set of agreements were issued of which this Research Compact was one.
G7 Research Compact
Carbis Bay, England, June 13, 2021
As Open Societies with democratic values we believe in academic freedom. The freedom to pursue intellectual enquiry and to innovate allows us to make progress on shared issues and drive forward the frontiers of knowledge and discovery for the benefit of the entire world. We recognise that research and innovation are fundamentally global endeavours. Nations, citizens, institutions, and businesses have made huge strides forward, not otherwise possible, through open research collaboration across borders. Working together we will use our position as leading science nations to collaborate on global challenges, increase the transparency and integrity of research, and facilitate data free flow with trust to drive innovation and advance knowledge.
The global response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the progress that arises from long-term collaboration which puts science at the heart of prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and resilience. This progress requires sustained investment in research and supporting infrastructure, including in basic research and high-risk, high-reward undertakings. As our nations and communities start to recover from the pandemic and build resilience for future shocks, we will continue to work with our research and business communities to remove barriers to the open and rapid sharing of knowledge, data and tools, to the greatest extent possible, recognising the importance of research security in particular in cutting-edge fields, and to promote open science and increase open, safe and transparent dissemination of science to citizens, and to strive to minimise technology-related risk.
We can only tackle the greatest challenges that we face and will face over coming decades – such as climate change, pandemics and biodiversity loss – through transparent, open and agile research collaboration. We must bring the widest possible range of resources, expertise and perspectives to bear on solutions which will benefit people across the globe.
We commit to promoting international research cooperation and the conditions of freedom, independence, openness, reciprocity and transparency under which it flourishes. Our governments have the right and responsibility to effectively ensure the security and integrity of the research ecosystem, in partnership with the research community, preventing the theft, misuse and inappropriate exploitation of our intellectual property and personal data, and other forms of misconduct.
We are committed to developing a strong, diverse and resilient science and research community which is inclusive of all groups, as recognised by the Working Group on Financing Science for Inclusive Growth. It is important to deepen participation of underserved, underrepresented and marginalised communities and expand their participation in the research and innovation ecosystem. Inclusion will enhance the strength of our research base and increase momentum on dismantling the social, legal, and regulatory barriers limiting participation, and complementing our G7 gender equality goals by tackling gender gaps. Principles and practices of inclusive growth distribute the benefits of science among diverse communities and regions across the G7 and beyond.
Openness, reciprocity and cooperation are shared G7 values. We commit to work together to uphold and protect the principles that underpin effective international collaboration that is as open as possible and as secure as necessary. To facilitate this, we support continued collaboration on Open Science through continuation of the existing G7 Working Group and establishing a new Working Group on the Security and Integrity of the Research Ecosystem. In light of this, the G7 nations commit to work together to:
Maintain policies, legal frameworks and programmes which promote research collaboration – among our scientists, research institutions and innovative businesses;
Promote the efficient processing and sharing of research data as openly as possible and as securely as necessary across the G7 and beyond, by improving the availability, sustainability, usability and interoperability of research data, technologies, infrastructure and services. We will work together to address the administrative, legal, and regulatory barriers that hinder our scientific cooperation and slow our ability to respond to crises. A specific case study focussed on data sharing in an emergency will increase our resilience by working through barriers;
Explore incentives, including enhancements to research assessment that foster recognition and reward collaboration across all disciplines and topics to drive a culture of rapid sharing of knowledge, data, software, code and other research resources. Investigate how open science practices help achieve increasingly robust, reliable and impactful research outcomes;
As we continue to see the benefits of international collaboration in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, we have a shared aspiration for more flexible and agile research collaborations facilitating rapid, interdisciplinary, and evidence-based responses to future systemic crises and natural disasters across G7 nations and beyond. We will explore how existing and potential new mechanisms and initiatives can support risk reduction, prevention and response to these events;
The G7 Working Group on the Security and Integrity of the Research Ecosystem will develop a common set of principles which, when implemented, will help to protect the research and innovation ecosystem across the G7 from risks to open and reciprocal research collaboration, and preserve the principles of open science and research freedom and independence. The Group will develop proposals for a virtual academy and toolkit, bringing together and developing the skills and experience of researchers, innovators, business leaders, and policy makers from any nation to develop a shared understanding of research integrity and security. This will embed the behaviours, systems and processes needed to protect valuable knowledge and technology assets where necessary, allowing international collaboration to continue with confidence.
Because Fiction has to make sense, George Orwell made sure that readers of Nineteen Eighty Four could easily decipher Newspeak. Unless you work on the inside for the Suzerain, however, you may not be able to make sense of this Research Compact. The words seem to say things we should all applaud.
The G7 Compact was published before the news broke that Pfizer, with FDA’s collaboration, intended to block access to the data from the trial that brought Comirnaty, the ‘Pfizer’ ‘vaccine’, on the market for 75 years at least. So much for Data Access.
Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, and Astra-Zeneca still do not intend to offer access to the ‘data’ from their trials. There is, and for 30 years has been, no more access to the data from company drug trials, than there is to their vaccine trials. See Where Does the Misinformation Come From?
Yes, Judge Pittman has said Pfizer have to provide their trial data long before 75 years are up, but there are all sorts of ways for Pfizer to subvert the Judge’s intentions. The vaccine trials effectively ended two years ago when all those taking placebo were offered the chance to get vaccinated. Some were faced with the fact that without a vaccine they couldn’t travel or work. But the official end of the trial is in 2024 and Pfizer can avail of this and hold out presenting key data until this point, and all the time it will take to produce a final analysis of the data, have passed.
Even then there will be no access to the data. No one will know who the people are. But for Augusto Roux’s persistence, no one would have been able to ask 12312982 whether he really did withdraw from the trial for personal reasons. No one would have been able to work out that the mental health problems he was recorded as having were bogus – See Disappeared in Argentina and August is the Cruellest Month.
People are the data in clinical trials – not figures. None of the hundreds of trial participants categorized as protocol deviations in the Pfizer trial, and eliminated, or eliminated from other company studies, can be asked exactly what happened to them. Not even FDA can ask them.
Companies not only make it impossible to track down people but have also engineered a situation where no matter how compelling the narrative a person, or some relative, might offer, everybody – the editors of the NEJM, BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, writers of guidelines like the NICE Guidelines – see Twas the NICE before Christmas – regulators like FDA, MHRA, EMA etc, and politicians – will bow and scrape and say these are nothing but anecdotes.
Ian Hudson, ex-GSK and now ex-boss of the UK regulator, MHRA, and all company people say that unless a problem has been demonstrated to occur to a statistically significant extent on a drug, it is anecdotal. This is as fantasy a world as an assassin claiming he was innocent on the basis that Hudson’s death was anecdotal – Once is Nothing as Milan Kundera said in The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
As I am not a Number and The Sovereign Individual show, companies are after our data, our figures, in another way also. Just as Google and Facebook want the traces of our touches on a keyboard, our data exhaust, and from this can predict an extraordinary amount about us, so pharma and other health service companies, like the Mayo Clinic, now want our health data exhaust.
There is nothing about this that is designed to help us or care for us. It is all about shifting product. In the near future, simulacra made from our health data, will be more real than either you or I. The only remaining fly in the ointment for companies will be any hint that we retain residual traces of a capacity for independent judgement.
Another bit of Newspeak lies in the idea companies run clinical trials. They don’t. They run assay systems designed to get their drug on the market. An assay means producing figures that allow a regulator to tick a box and license a company to use a word like vaccine or antidepressant or whatever.
These studies do not explore what this drug in fact does to people. They can be and are designed to conceal the harms the drugs cause.
When a regulator licences a drug, it does not mean that this drug or vaccine saves lives – vanishingly few drugs save lives in company studies and no recent ‘vaccines’ do. In these studies more people die on the drug or vaccine than on placebo. And there is no evidence of a restoration of function. All that the study will have shown is a minimal change on some rating scale and this is all a regulator needs to approve the drug. See Love in a Time of Covid.
Studies that fail to show even this minimal change on a rating scale – negative studies – are routinely published as showing the drug or vaccine is entirely safe and works well. Regulators like FDA, Health Canada, EMA in Europe and others pay no heed to these essentially fraudulent practice.
When an outfit like Ventavia can shamelessly produce adverts like this – See Eric Rubin Boston Strangler – there is very little hope for any of us.
Two earlier posts bear on these points and company interests in controlled data access – Mark and Barb, Eric and Carole along with Harmatology. The G7 Research Compact stands as a testament to the efforts of Pfizer, other pharmaceutical companies, and New England health service and medical interests, in the form of the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials (MRCT) organization set up a little over a decade ago to produce exactly the outcome seen in this Research Compact.
In our times a middle ground critical to society, community and our humanity has vanished. Samizdat was set up just before COVID and its vaccines rolled out. It aimed at hanging on to the then rapidly diminishing scraps of middle ground. The Vaccines have since obliterated any scraps that were left.
A middle ground, a place where people of differing opinions can engage, depends on something outside of our selves that creates a space the way a tent pole creates a tent. When the tent pole collapses, the space to engage vanishes. Unable to cooperate, we are more likely to struggle.
For five or six centuries Religion has been the pole that held things up. Even as we secularized, a set of shared values, a shared morality, played a similar role.
The Law also stood as something to which both rich and poor were in principle subject.
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
In the last two centuries, science has helped hold up the sky – provide a vertical dimension. This was not a science constituted by the figures to which the G7 Research Compact appeals. This science focused on data but it hinged on judgement calls about what the data likely meant. It did not surrender judgement to figures.
Within medicine, this science and the values linked to it have collapsed.
There is no other word appropriate when a supposedly scientific literature is almost entirely ghostwritten, when access to the people who were in a study is forbidden, and when the judgements of people who get to examine and cross-examine a person injured by treatment – the only point where all relevant data are in the frame at the same time – are dismissed.
Without a common ground on which we can engage, there can only be a reversion to a struggle in which the strongest survive. Rather than depend on the Law or Science to guarantee our Rights to Speak, for most people the sensible thing is to pledge allegiance to the strongest man around.
As Sanna Marin, Premier of Finland, put it baldly, quite recently, in this void, caught between great powers, European States depend completely on the United States. Finland and other States are now Vassals.
Is the United States a Suzerain power that lets it’s European Vassals exert Sovereingty within their own borders? Are these countries allowed to entertain the possibility that my story or yours are not just anecdotes but offer compelling evidence that vaccines or drugs can harm? The once citizens of these countries have become serfs with those who retain a memory of the rule of law and norms of science now outcasts – on the run.
Is Albert Bourla standing at the US Presidential Lectern as a member of a ruling class that includes the CEOs of companies like Google, all marching in lockstep with the US Military?
Health has become a key military concern – see Military Maneuvers. The US military in particular have led the way in making Biopower a literal reality. Michel Foucault, inventor of the biopower soundbite, could not have imagined a reality like this or its juxtaposition with the most rapidly falling life expectancy of any developed nation.
We Are Not At War See Love in a Time of Covid
We want you to take this vaccine.
We are not going to tell you what the harms are.
We couldn’t tell you what the harms are even if we were prepared to.
We contracted out the provision of vaccines to third parties with a track record of fraud and we have no way to establish what happened in the studies they undertook.
Our regulatory apparatus has a track record in approving products that kill more people than they save and in completely missing serious hazards
But we want you to consent to being vaccinated
If you don’t consent, many of your liberties will be removed.
Once you consent you are liable for any injuries by virtue of your consent.
The usual recourse to redress if you are harmed by a treatment doesn’t apply in this case.
The United States appears to be splintering into warring parties that increasingly look like they have no values in common. What happens if a Suzerain stumbles?
To be continued