The Covenant with Death Part 4
The “The Covenant with Death” relationship between Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American College of Ob-GYN (ACOG).
The “The Covenant with Death” relationship between Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG).
Part 4
In Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this series, we reviewed the entanglement of our governmental agencies, HHS and CDC with ACOG through Our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that Maggie Thorp JD MACP and I obtained.
To learn more about COVID-19 funding received by ACOG during the pandemic, as well as who (and what) might have been behind ACOG’s about-face on July 30, 2021, we (Maggie Thorp JD MACP and I) made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to HHS in 2022. Our request was simple – it sought only to obtain documents involving the three $11 million “Cooperative Agreement” grants HHS/CDC made to ACOG during the pandemic.[1] These grants were listed on a publicly accessible open data source for federal spending, USASPENDING.gov.[2] Our FOIA request struck gold – triggering 1400+ pages in government databases related to these three “Cooperative Agreements” awarded to ACOG. But my request also struck a nerve – approximately half of the information produced on those 1400+ pages of federal grants was redacted by HHS, ACOG, or both. Although specific program information and details about the grants have been redacted (based upon work-product, attorney-client, trade secret, and other privileges), the FOIA documents disclose the existence of the following grant programs between CDC and ACOG:
“Engaging Women’s Health Care Providers for Effective COVID-19 Vaccine Conversations”[3]
“Improving Ob/Gyn’s Ability to Support COVID-19 Vaccination, Mental Health, and Social Support”[4]
An ERR- Emergency Resource Request Tool,” made by a “Requestor” from the CDC and needed by April 30, 2021 (before ACOG began recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant individuals), in which “ACOG will use the $300,000 funding level to support its COVID-19 response efforts, targeting ob-gyns, other women’s health care practitioners, and the patients they serve.”[5]
A grant in which communications giant APCO Worldwide, a global public health communication vendor,[6] “will support three key initiatives within the COVID-19 scope,” including:
1. Support ACOG in developing a COVID-19 Earned and Social Media Communications Toolkit.[7]
2. Conduct “Virtual Training for Members” to promote the COVID-19 communications toolkit, including hosting one 1.5-hour live virtual training session for ACOG members to “be recorded so it can further be amplified and used by other members.”[8]
3. In partnership with ACOG, assist with producing and launching a COVID-19 podcast series, sharing information on the latest COVID-19 recommendation for ACOG members.[9]
· A grant in which ACOG will, by September 29, 2023
1. “develop one COVID-19 tool kit for District Managers” and
2. “launch a paid social media campaign targeting areas with low vaccination rates and high vaccination hesitancy.”[10]
An ERR- Emergency Resource Request Tool,” made by a “Requestor” from the CDC and needed by March 11, 2022, which will “continue and expand upon work being done during Years 1 and 2 of this collaboration. In year 3, ACOG will focus on developing, maintaining, and promoting tools to combat misinformation on COVID-19, which has emerged as a significant barrier to the uptake of vaccination during pregnancy. ACOG will also asses which of their districts and sections are the most in need of additional education and outreach and focus their efforts on those communities.”[11]
An ERR – Emergency Resource Request Tool, made by a “Requestor” from the CDC and needed by March 11, 2022, for a second PILOT project involving both the American Academy of Pediatrics and ACOG, which notes, “the ACOG-related activities between the two projects are complementary and not duplicative.”[12]
Even with the significant redactions, the FOIA documents revealed startling information. By the terms and conditions of the Cooperative Agreements, ACOG must fully comply with all existing and future guidance from the HHS regarding the control and spread of COVID-19.[13],[14]
If it sounds like government capture of ACOG – it is. Even more disturbing, CDC is surreptitiously working through ACOG, exploiting ACOG’s authority and sway, to influence not only doctors and patients – but a host of others – including public health entities and “partner organizations.” One lengthy provision in the Cooperative Agreement is particularly telling, making it difficult to tell where ACOG ends, and CDC begins:
“ACOG is currently in regular communication with CDC and other partner organizations to collaborate on the COVID-19 pandemic response. Moving forward in Year 3 of this project, ACOG will continue to collaborate with CDC to ensure that activities and funding are coordinated with and complementary to efforts supported under other CDC programs. ACOG will continue to leverage the strong relationship with the CDC to share information, review data, discuss recommendations, and convene subject matter experts to ensure that recommendations are aligned between the two organizations. ACOG will continue to participate in monthly meetings with CDC, and additional meetings as needed when emerging issues related to COVID-19 and other emerging threats arise. Additionally, ACOG staff will work closely with CDC to monitor program development, implementation, and evaluation throughout its life cycle.”
“ACOG will continue to build on partnerships and collaborations with organizations that play key roles in reaching clinicians, patients, and public health entities that play an important role in preventing and controlling the spread of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. This will include participating in webinars, conference calls, and other outreach opportunities with partner organizations similar to the collaborative work that has occurred in Years 1 and 2.”[15]
Similar to what former HHS Deputy Assistant Sec. Mark Weber writes about, HHS and CDC seem to be using ACOG to “deliver messages without the Federal government being directly involved (even though the information may come from a Federal source).”52 Until the FOIA documents were obtained, the CDC’s influential role in ACOG’s COVID-19-related activities and recommendations for pregnant patients was obscured from public view.
More FOIA Documents – COVID-19 Vaccination “Conversations” Between Ob-Gyn Doctors and Their Patients
Of particular interest, the FOIA documents reveal two Cooperative Agreement grants, totaling over $5,000,000 in grant money to ACOG, for a project called “Engaging Women’s Health Care Providers for Effective COVID-19 Vaccine Conversations.”53 Another separate grant is for a project entitled “Improving Ob/Gyns’ Ability to Support COVID-19 Vaccination, Mental Health, Social Support.”54 Another perhaps similar project appears to have received grant money in excess of an additional $1 million, funded at the same time – but this project was apparently so controversial that ACOG and HHS/CDC chose to redact it from public view.55
While specific details about the program entitled “Engaging Women’s Healthcare Providers for Effective COVID-19 Vaccine Conversations” was redacted, ACOG’s own website might provide a hint about what this project could have entailed. This is because ACOG’s website contains a special “Conversation Guide” page for ob-gyn physicians.
Entitled “COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide – Key Recommendations and Messaging for Clinicians,” the page is, by ACOG’s own admission, “intended to help guide [clinicians’] conversations with pregnant patients.”56 Thanks to this page, there is no need for a ob-gyn to exercise independent medical thought or clinical judgment regarding whether a particular patient should take the COVID-19 shot. Nor is there reason to provide informed consent to the patient about the known and unknown risks of the shots.
Moreover, if the CDC’s “Engaging Women’s Healthcare Providers for Effective COVID-19 Vaccine Conversations” grant is any hint – ACOG’s “Conversation Guide” page may have been drafted in participation with and/or under the purview of the CDC. Key recommendations from ACOG’s “Conversation Guide” page include:
“Vaccination may occur in any trimester, and emphasis should be on vaccine receipt as soon as possible to maximize maternal and fetal health. This recommendation applies to both primary series and booster vaccination.”57
“For patients who do not receive any COVID-19 vaccine, the discussion should be documented in the patient’s medical record. During subsequent office visits, obstetrician–gynecologists should address ongoing questions and concerns and offer vaccination again.”58
The nutshell version? Urgently push the COVID-19 shots in pregnant patients blindly and repeatedly, without the need for offering informed consent. If you cannot convince the patient to take the COVID-19 “vaccine,” document this discussion in the patient’s electronic medical record for what is likely reporting to the CDC.59
ACOG’s “Conversation Guide” webpage also conveniently includes “Key Messages” for its ob-gyn physicians, intended to nullify the need for informed consent and dismiss a pregnant patient’s concerns about safety:
“None of the COVID-19 vaccines available for use under emergency use authorization or U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) license causes infertility or spontaneous abortion.”
“There is no evidence of adverse maternal or fetal effects from vaccinating pregnant individuals with the COVID-19 vaccine, and a growing body of data demonstrates the safety of such use.”60
Sources Flash Danger
Yet, multiple sources (which we have written about here), including the government’s own data contained in VAERS,61 casts doubt on the veracity of these “Key Messages.” At this point in time, continuing to blindly push COVID-19 “vaccination” in pregnancy without informed consent could invite lawsuits brought by any woman who has suffered a complication following the shots, including a complication to her baby.
Most recently, the Defender, a publication which is affiliated with Children’s Health Defense (an organization that advocates for greater vaccine safety founded by Democratic Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy), reports alarming data. Calling into question the veracity of ACOG’s/CDC’s “Key Messages,” the data reported on by the Defender suggest that authorities knew of health risks with the mRNA shots, but assured pregnant mothers it was safe anyway.62 According to a recent troubling report from Naomi Wolf’s organization, DailyClout, the April 2023 batch of Pfizer clinical documents released under court order demonstrate that both Pfizer and FDA knew the mRNA shots caused serious harm to both fetuses and infants – yet CDC pushed the shots anyway.63
More Questions than Answers
ACOG’s July 30, 2021, page recommending the COVID-19 “vaccines” for pregnant individuals does not disclose that ACOG – a membership-driven non-governmental organization – was operating under the purview of the HHS and CDC regarding its COVID-19 guidance for pregnant women at the time that recommendation was made.64 Which begs multiple questions: When ACOG changed its official COVID-19 “vaccination” position on July 30, 2021 – choosing to follow CDC’s April 23, 2021, recommendations that COVID-19 “vaccines” be given to pregnant women – why didn’t ACOG simply disclose it was following the CDC’s recommendations? Was this July 30, 2021 recommendation also ACOG’s own independent recommendation? If so, what exactly was ACOG’s independent recommendation based upon? Was it based on the CDC’s highly influential but statistically flawed study published April 21, 2021, by CDC Immunization Safety Office Director, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro?65 In tactics reminiscent of totalitarian societies, in which the totalitarian state pursues an agenda or goal to the exclusion of all others, the landing point here is always the federal government.
Regarding the FOIA documents involving three Cooperative Agreement grants made to ACOG during the pandemic (showing ACOG partnered with and was essentially bound by the CDC regarding its COVID-19 protocols), why weren’t all pages released, providing full transparency? After all, these grants directly impact pregnant women and their unborn children – two of the most vulnerable groups with respect to the COVID-19 shots – and evidence of partnerships between ACOG and the HHS/CDC, administered by US public agencies and supported by tax dollars.
Lastly, if ACOG truly believes (as it states on its “Conversation Guide” page), that there has been “no evidence of adverse maternal or fetal effects from vaccinating pregnant individuals with the COVID-19 vaccine,”66 then why in the world has it, together with or separately from HHS, invoked “attorney-client,” “work product” and “trade secret” privileges with respect to the redacted FOIA pages? I can’t help but wonder: has ACOG communicated with its 60,000 members to ask their clinical opinions about whether the COVID-19 vaccine should be blindly administered, without informed consent, in any trimester of pregnancy? Has ACOG asked its 60,000 members what they are seeing clinically?
Finally, the fact that ACOG is under the purview of and must comply with the CDC regarding COVID-19 vaccination recommendations in pregnancy is troubling for yet another reason – a potential conflict of interest via the CDC’s nonprofit support entity, the CDC Foundation.67
Donation records show that the CDC Foundation has, in past years leading up to the pandemic, received donations from Pfizer, Inc.,68 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,69 and a host of other pharmaceutical companies and private entities.70 Essentially, this puts not only the CDC inside the patient room with you and your ob-gyn while discussing the issue of taking the COVID-19 “vaccination” during pregnancy, but also pharmaceutical manufacturers and others who stand to profit most if you comply.
See Part 4 in our upcoming Substack.
James A Thorp, MD
[1] USASPENDING.gov. 2023. “Spending by Prime Award.” Accessed May 3, 2023. https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=2b9bbf7349e6c520a55164cbe34c6321.
[2] USASPENDING.gov. 2023.Accessed May 6, 2023.
https://www.usaspending.gov/
.
[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See p. 439.
[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See p. 439.
[5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See p. 878
[6] APCO Worldwide. 2023.
https://apcoworldwide.com/
. Accessed May 7, 2023. See also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. APCO Worldwide is identified on page 963.
[7] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See pp. 963-965, 964.
[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See pp. 963-965, 964.
[9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See pp. 963-965, 964.
[10] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See p. 1000.
[11] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See p. 1112.
[12] IBID footnote 14
[13] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945 . Accessed May 3, 2023. See pp. 569-575. Specifically, p. 573 states in connection with a COVID-19 related grant awarded to ACOG on July 13, 2022:
Substantial Involvement by CDC: This is a cooperative agreement and CDC will have substantial programmatic involvement after the award is made. Substantial involvement is in addition to all post award monitoring, technical assistance, and performance reviews undertaken in the normal course of stewardship of federal funds (Emphasis retained).
[14] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Accessed May 3, 2022. Documents responsive to FOIA Request can be accessed at https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945.
[15] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023. Documents responsive to FOIA Request. 2023. https://centersfordiseasecontrol.sharefile.com/d-sa6cdb04fbfef4f579490cc942fe74945. Accessed May 3, 2023. Page 1000. (Emphasis added).