Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.
Nearly two years into the phenomenon labeled COVID-19, more and more people recognize that a global coup d’état is underway — a push by central bankers and technocrats for “totalitarian control of your transportation, your bank account, your movement, every aspect of your life,” said Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a speech he delivered in November 2021 in Milan.
Now, a year’s worth of vaccine injury data (however imperfect) is telling “a very frightening story” about the dangers of the experimental COVID shots, and is exposing the immorality of administering them to children.
As Kennedy recently argued, “Forcing an entire population to accept an arbitrary and risky medical intervention is the most intrusive and demeaning action ever imposed by the U.S. government, and perhaps any government.”
Concerned about a rapidly advancing bio-surveillance state that would like to make participation in society dependent on vaccine passports and repeat injections, many people are wondering what they can do to resist.
Kennedy described one action that is obvious, if not necessarily easy: Say no “to buying products from the companies bankrupting and seeking to control us.”
In this instance, saying “no” requires casting a wide net, boycotting not just Big Pharma offenders like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) — whose products fill most Americans’ medicine cabinets — but also felonious big banks angling in the shadows for complete digital control over private resources.
Boycotts are not easy, and market analysts sometimes dispute their effectiveness. On the other hand, argues Catholic writer Dusty Gates, “When we complain about something with our lips, but continue to participate in it with our pocketbooks, our complaint loses its volume and clarity.”
Taking moral responsibility “for our personal exercise of purchasing power” and withdrawing support from entities that “degrade the common good” may not be sufficient to halt tyranny in the short term, but history shows such actions can pay long-term dividends.
Remembering the boycott’s origins
It is uncertain how many people know or remember the boycott’s 19th-century Irish origins, but the 1880 tale — one of resolute determination in desperate times — offers powerful lessons that are far from outdated.
At the time, Irish tenant farmers were in the throes of a severe famine and had hit a wall in attempting to renegotiate rents with English land agent Charles Cunningham Boycott.
When Irish nationalist Charles Stewart Parnell encouraged tenants, laborers and local shopkeepers to cut the intransigent Englishman off “from all economic and social relations with the rest of the population,” the nonviolent effort was so successful — and so devastating to Boycott’s day-to-day existence — that the man ended up fleeing Ireland in disgrace.
In his 2015 essay on “why we need boycotts,” Dusty Gates noted there is a difference between what a boycott “most often is” and what a boycott “ought to be.”
Referring to the 1880 events, Gates emphasized that the reason for the Irish tenant farmers’ actions and for the boycott’s resounding success “was specifically that people were being treated unfairly” and were losing their livelihood.
With so much at stake, the boycott was “for people, not publicity.”
Reasons to boycott Pfizer
From all appearances, few of the Americans who last year accepted novel coronavirus injections paid much attention to the corporations making the jabs, instead naively accepting the companies’ “frontrunner” status as a guarantee of trustworthiness.
But while Americans might be forgiven for knowing little about secretive upstart Moderna, the public’s willingness to overlook the known and published offenses of behemoths like Pfizer and J&J is a bit more surprising.
As law firm Matthews & Associates observed in November 2020, just prior to the rollout of Pfizer’s experimental injection, “it would seem reasonable to share all the information available on a company millions of people are expected to trust with their health, perhaps their very lives.”
The firm then outlined key elements of Pfizer’s checkered history, describing it as “rife with … subterfuge and under-the-table dealing.”
In 2010, in a published paper, Canadian health economist and policy analyst Robert G. Evans summarized Pfizer’s record as one of “persistent criminal behavior.”
In a similar assessment, a Pfizer whistleblower stated, “The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn’t sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player.”
A small sampling of Pfizer’s unsavory track record includes:
- A settlement of $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing practices in 2009 — at the time, “the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice.”
- A lengthy history of dangerous products, including Zantac, Lipitor and many others.
- Additional settlements that reveal alleged patterns of racketeering and hiding important information about drug risks, sometimes for decades.
- An “illegal trial of an unregistered drug” in infants and children in Nigeria that killed 11 children and left others with brain damage and paralysis, ultimately resulting in a $75 million settlement; Pfizer tested the drug on the children without the parents’ informed consent.
- Recurrent problems with contamination and quality control, including disturbing reports from whistleblowers working in the plants manufacturing COVID shots.
Four years ago, Pfizer ranked dead last in a reputational rating of pharmaceutical companies and was considered one of the companies “most associated with arrogance and greed.”
But COVID shots have been very good for business. In 2020, before the Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer’s vaccine, two products (the blood thinner Eliquis and the Prevnar-13 vaccine) accounted for more than one-fourth of the company’s total revenue.
In 2021, not only did Pfizer’s COVID injections become the year’s top-selling drug worldwide, but top executive Albert Bourla snagged CNN’s honorific of CEO of the Year.
Agreeing with Forbes “there is money to be made and influence to be gained by having people think positively of you,” Bourla gleefully told CNN, “we are enjoying high levels of corporate reputation right now. People like us.”
To keep it that way, Pfizer is now leading the charge to block legislation that would strengthen whistleblowers’ ability to expose corporate fraud. Pharmaphorum rates Pfizer as the sixth largest lobbying presence in Washington.
As recounted in The Intercept, if the whistleblower legislation were to pass, it would strengthen anti-retaliation protections “and make it more difficult for companies charged with fraud to dismiss cases on procedural grounds.”
Buttressed by a fleet of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists, Pfizer and other Big Pharma felons such as Merck, AstraZeneca, Amgen and Genentech — all of whom have a history of paying large settlements for healthcare fraud — are working to make sure the bill does not pass.
They may well succeed, given Pfizer stock is one of the most popular holdings of U.S. lawmakers.
Reasons to boycott J&J
By revenue, J&J was, as of 2020, the world’s largest healthcare company. The company’s combined consumer, pharmaceutical and medical devices groups have displayed steady growth since the mid-2000s, with 55% higher annual revenue in 2020 compared to 2006.
J&J, along with Pfizer, is one of U.S. lawmakers’ top stock holdings.
J&J’s growth occurred against the backdrop of an offensive history (outlined on numerous occasions by The Defender) of civil and criminal fines and settlements related to Risperdal, opioids, surgical mesh products, asbestos-tainted baby powder as well as numerous other scandals that, pre-COVID, had finally begun to make a dent in the company’s brand and reputation.
In October 2021, eager to offload its talc liabilities, J&J created a subsidiary and then promptly filed for its bankruptcy protection. In November, meanwhile, J&J announced plans — billed by Reuters as “the biggest shake-up in the U.S. company’s 135-year history — to spin off its consumer health division to focus on the pharmaceutical and medical device division.
J&J is also betting big on “novel solutions” and technologies like robotics and artificial intelligence (AI). Back in 2015, J&J announced a partnership with Google to develop AI surgical robots.
Prior to COVID, J&J had virtually no experience developing vaccines, but COVID shots have been just as good for J&J’s bottom line as for Pfizer’s.
Despite the spate of negative publicity about vaccine-related blood clots and other adverse events, which plagued J&J throughout 2021, for the 12 months ending Sep. 30, 2021, the company reported a 13.1% year-over-year increase in revenue as well as a steadily climbing stock value.
The financial outlook for J&J’s COVID shot may change in 2022, however. In mid-December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the public it “preferentially recommends” getting a Pfizer or Moderna injection rather than J&J’s, despite all three jabs carrying similarly worrisome risks of blood-clotting disorders.
CDC continues to endorse J&J’s shot for vulnerable prison and homeless populations (or when the other two are unavailable), but one of CDC’s advisors told the press she “wouldn’t recommend [her] own family take the J&J shot.”
In addition to adverse events, J&J’s COVID shots have attracted attention for “deficiencies” at its Baltimore production plant, where its notoriously subpar contractor “accidentally” mixed up ingredients and ruined doses.
J&J’s manufacturing woes are neither new nor unique to vaccine production, however. Back in 2013, describing “poppy-seed sized bits of plastic” in infant Motrin and injectable medications marred by mold, a reporter criticized J&J’s hypocritical “warm and fuzzy” marketing, concluding that the “out of control” company had “too many subsidiaries and outsourcing of products to third-party manufacturers for responsible oversight.”
Reasons to boycott felonious banks
In CHD.TV’s new weekly series, “Financial Rebellion,’ former investment banker and Solari Inc. President Catherine Austin Fitts explained the importance of reclaiming financial independence from the “monopolizing grip of the central banks and digital currency titans.”
Fitts argued central banks are using the pandemic to engineer an all-digital control system “that will allow them to extract tax without representation” while exerting 24/7 control over our ability to transact.
Fitts explained how members of the public have a powerful tool at their disposal to disrupt the central bankers’ plans: People can stop banking with the juggernauts that are the largest shareowners of the New York Fed — for example, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of New York Mellon (as well as other megabanks such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo and State Street) — and instead reward well-managed local banks and credit unions with their business.
The New York Fed is part of the Federal Reserve System, one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks established by Congress under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
It is the largest of the 12 “in terms of assets and volume of activity” and, unlike the other Reserve Banks, has “unique responsibilities” that include buying and selling U.S. Treasury securities on the open market to regulate the supply of money and intervening in foreign exchange markets.
The New York Fed has exercised “unprecedented powers” since the 2008 financial crisis and has used the cover story of the pandemic to steadily broaden those powers.
The New York Fed’s ringleader bank, JPMorgan Chase, is the largest U.S. bank (when ranked by total assets), owns 62% of all stock derivatives (valued at $3.3 trillion) held at federally-insured U.S. banks and is one of the top 10 stock holdings of U.S. lawmakers.
But, like Pfizer and J&J, JPMorgan Chase is a “criminal recidivist.” The five-count felon bank facilitated “the largest Ponzi scheme in history” (the Madoff scheme) and racked up $42 billion in civil and criminal penalties between 2002 and 2019. Recent whistleblower allegations describe a culture of fraud.
Nor is JPMorgan Chase alone as an admitted felon among New York Fed member banks. In 2015, Citigroup joined JPMorgan Chase in pleading guilty to rigging foreign exchange markets. In 2020, Goldman Sachs was charged with two felony counts.
Every action counts
Academic studies show the impact of boycotts is most significant when the companies in question already have a bad reputation and a history of frequent past scandals.
This suggests that boycotting Big Pharma, which before COVID had a long-standing reputation as “the most loathed industry in the country,” ought to be an easy sell.
Although companies like Pfizer and J&J may be benefiting from a short-lived “vaccine-led reputation boost,” their COVID injections’ nontrivial dangers are becoming so evident that even the complacent may have trouble discounting the risks.
Dr. Peter McCullough described the shots as the “most dangerous biological medicinal product rollout in human history.”
For some members of the public, connecting the dots to private central banks represents a more challenging conceptual leap.
However, it is vital to recognize the unfolding global coup as an effort coordinated across multiple sectors, not least of which is the financial sector. And — as central bankers step out of their financial silos and brazenly lecture the world about getting vaccinated — their role in the engineering of tyranny is becoming ever more obvious.
Ending tyranny will require action from each of us, beginning with saying “no” to the disastrous COVID shots.
Admittedly, it may be harder to have as immediate an impact on today’s mega-corporations and billionaire tyrants as was achieved when laundresses, postal messengers and blacksmiths so effectively shunned Charles Cunningham Boycott in the 19th century.
But severing our financial — and energetic — ties with the pharma and banking entities that are harming us is still a powerful place to begin.
Boycotts, if driven by a strong “moral impetus,” can have clout.
Products and subsidiaries you can boycott
For boycotting purposes, we include below a partial list of products manufactured by Pfizer and J&J, and a selected list of their numerous acquisitions and subsidiaries.
Leading Pfizer brands:
Advil, Bextra, Celebrex, Chantix, Depo-Testosterone, Diflucan, Effexor, Eliquis, EpiPen, Ibrance, Lipitor, Lyrica, Nexium, Norvasc, Prempro, Prevnar 13, Protonix, Viagra, Xanax, Xeljanz, Xtandi, Zithromax, Zoloft
Selected Pfizer acquisitions and subsidiaries:
1968: Quigley Company
2000: Warner-Lambert
2003: Pharmacia & Upjohn
2008: Serenex
2009: ViiV Healthcare (joint venture with GSK), Wyeth
2010: King Pharmaceuticals, Meridian Medical Technologies (sold to Altaris in Nov. 2021)
2014: InnoPharma, Redvax GmbH (controlling interest)
2015: Hospira
2016: Anacor, Medivation, Treerly
2018: GSK Consumer Healthcare (joint venture with GSK)
2019: Array Biopharma, Viatris (merger of Upjohn and Mylan)
2021: Amplyx Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Trillium Therapeutics
Leading Johnson & Johnson brands:
Aveeno, Band-Aids, Concerta, Darzalex, devices for hip and knee replacements, Elmiron, Erleada, Imbruvica, Immodium, Invega, Invokana, Levaquin, Listerine, Opsumit, Pepcid, Remicaid, Reminyl, Risperdal, Stelara, surgical mesh products, Symtuza, Topamax, Tremfya, Tylenol, Uptravi, vision care products, Xarelto, Zyrtec, Zytiga
Selected J&J acquisitions and subsidiaries:
1947: Ethicon
1959: Cilag, McNeil
1961: Janssen Pharmaceuticals
1994: Neutrogena
1996: Cordis
1997: Biosense
1998: DePuy
2006: Animas Corporation, Pfizer Consumer Healthcare
2009: Acclarent
2010: Crucell, Micrus Endovascular
2012: Synthes
2017: Abbott Medical Optics, Actelion, TearScience
2019: Auris Health
2020: Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Verb Surgical
