Transcript of Dr. Sam Bailey’s introduction, provided by TCTL editor:
Last month, we were fortunate to have microbiologist and colloidal chemistry expert Dr. Robin Wakeling present his analysis of Pfizer Comirnaty under the microscope. Since that time Dr. Wakeling has continued to investigate the injections and is also linked up with other New Zealand teams who have shared their findings with him.
In Part 1 of his analysis, Dr. Wakeling presented the appearances of Comirnaty straight from the vial and has some new information regarding how these complexes form.
But perhaps, more importantly, in this video for the first time he is going to analyze the blood of some Pfizer-injected subjects who have suffered adverse reactions.
He’ll explain what he thinks is happening to the red blood cells and some of the most bizarre images he has ever seen in his long career.
In addition to Comirnaty, the teams have also been investigating recent influenza vaccines under the microscope, with some surprising findings that the officially disclosed ingredient don’t appear to explain.
Dr. Wakeling joins my husband, Dr. Mark Bailey, to present round two of Pfizer Under the Microscope.
OTTAWA: After repeatedly calling on the University of Ottawa (U of O) to end its abusive and discriminatory practices, the Justice Centre is pleased announce that the University has stated it will cancel its mandatory vaccine policy for students as of May 1, 2022.
The Justice Centre represented a pregnant student who was suspended from her university program after deciding against the Covid vaccine. Her doctor advised her that her pregnancy was at high-risk for reasons unrelated to Covid and recommended that she complete her mandatory internship virtually, which was allowed by the curriculum.
However, the University of Ottawa refused to accommodate her, falsely claiming that she was trying to circumvent the vaccination policy and that there were no places available for a virtual internship.
Throughout the process, U of O made little to no effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, the student alleges, and refused to justify its decisions in light of the facts of the case.
“It is clear that the University of Ottawa did not intend to follow the ‘reasonable accommodation’ basic criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada more than 15 years ago,” notes Samuel Bachand senior external counsel for the Justice Centre in the province of Québec.
After negotiations and discussions with lawyers from the Justice Centre, the student managed to find a suitable placement for virtual internship on her own, which was finally approved by the University.
“The brazenness and bad faith of the University in this matter are appalling. There are clearly, among the people in authority there, bureaucrats who are willing to sacrifice the mission of their institution to irrational health concerns,” comments Mr. Bachand,
“It is well accepted in the scientific community that the Covid vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus. There was no basis for the vaccine mandate at the University of Ottawa or any other post-secondary institution given that being vaccinated confers no special status or protection,” concludes Mr. Bachand.
“The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent
“SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and
animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the
random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated
into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place.
Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely
related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.
Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines,
the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have
a few purposes:
To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a
singular cause.
To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial
evidence that is easily debunked.”
“My story has never been to create fear, panic, and anxiety about water.” He said he told Peters that he believes “there’s actually a snake venom connection to all of COVID-19, and I think that’s the weapon.” – Dr. Bryan Ardis
Summarizing his theory, Dr. Ardis said, “They are using Krait venom and Cobra venom, calling it Covid-19, you’re drinking it, it’s getting into your brainstem and it’s paralyzing your diaphragm’s ability to breathe.”
I really didn’t want to write this article. I was hopeful that people would easily see right through the unsubstantiated claims of Dr. Bryan Ardis that snake venom is the cause of “Covid.” I was hopeful that people would take the time to research the information presented in support of the snake venom theory to see if it held any merit at all. I thought his whirlwind alternative media tour on the who’s who of questionable sources (including the likes of Stew Peters, Mike Adams, and Infowars) would have people questioning why this theory was allowed to be so heavily promoted so quickly. I thought that the fact that the man who created the “Covid” snake venom theory was actually selling his own anti-venom line of supplements would be enough grounds to be skeptical of his motive and his claims.
It seems I was wrong. Just like the baseless vaccine shedding and gain of function/bioweapons narratives, this new snake venom theory has sadly spread through the “Truther” community like wildfire, with many who rightfully challenge the existence of “viruses” clinging to the idea of a new invisible enemy to defeat. They believe that it must be a new toxin. It can’t possibly be the same factors we have seen each and every year leading to disease. This toxin must be hiding in the vaccines, the drugs, and/or even the very water we drink. What these “Truthers” do not realize is that this very line of thinking gives credibility to the idea of a new disease which requires new treatments in order to combat it. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe.
However, there is NO NEW DISEASE. There is no need for any new or even existing pharmaceutical interventions to treat the same symptoms of detoxification people go through each and every year. In fact, the current treatments can easily be shown to have led to numerous unnecessary deaths. There is no new threat known as “Covid-19” which is being caused by any one factor. The factors leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing are multi-causal as they are every year.
Now this is not to say that the vaccines, the drugs, or even the water supply are free of toxins. These are all sources of toxicity and should be investigated as to their composition and effects on our health. However, the theory that there is one factor in all of these sources, i.e. snake venom, and this one factor is leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing is, at present time, completely baseless. And it all begins at the very foundation of the fraudulent genome.
The Fradulent Genome
You take that snake or that serpent and you figure out how to isolate genes from that serpent and get those genes of that serpent to insert itself into your God-given created DNA. I think this is the plan all along, was to get the serpents’, the evil one’s DNA, into your God-created DNA.”
He also said genetic sequence testing done on sick patients in Wuhan found their genetic sequence matched two snakes, the Chinese Krait and King Cobra, not bats.”
From Dr. Ardis’ interview with Mike Adams, he supplied the article “Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak” from CNN as his starting point for the “Covid”/snake connection. Within the article, you can see that this claim originates from the fraudulent genomes:
“The researchers used an analysis of the protein codes favored by the new coronavirus and compared it to the protein codes from coronaviruses found in different animal hosts, like birds, snakes, marmots, hedgehogs, manis, bats and humans. Surprisingly, they found that the protein codes in the 2019-nCoV are most similar to those used in snakes.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/
To anyone who actually researched the creation of the original “SARS-COV-2” genome, it is readily apparent that it is a fraudulent computer-generated creation stemming from the unpurified lung fluid of a single patient. The sequenced material could have come from multiple sources, including host DNA/RNA, bacteria, and microbes/microorganisms. It could have even come from outside contamination. There is no way to tell what the origin of the RNA is or even if it was a single source as no particles assumed to be “SARS-COV-2” were ever properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids of the sick patient before being sequenced. Thus, any relation this fabricated sequence has to any other sequence is invalid as the source was never identified to exist as a physical entity to begin with. Considering that the bat and snake “coronavirus” sequences for which the “SARS-COV-2” sequence was then compared to also come from unpurified sources, it is easy to see that any claims as to the origins of the sequenced material is a horrible foundation to build upon for an origin theory of a nonexistent “virus” and/or disease.
Even if this snake-venom connection was valid, the enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom. These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and yet they are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals. From his own source:
Like Venom Coursing Through the Body: Researchers Identify Mechanism Driving COVID-19 Mortality
“Researchers from the University of Arizona, in collaboration with Stony Brook University and Wake Forest School of Medicine, analyzed blood samples from two COVID-19 patient cohorts and found that circulation of the enzyme – secreted phospholipase A2 group IIA, or sPLA2-IIA, – may be the most important factor in predicting which patients with severe COVID-19 eventually succumb to the virus.
The sPLA2-IIA enzyme, which has similarities to an active enzyme in rattlesnake venom, is found in low concentrations in healthy individuals and has long been known to play a critical role in defense against bacterial infections, destroying microbial cell membranes.”
Thus, the snake enzymes are in fact normal human enzymes that are regularly found in healthy individuals. There is no mystery as to why these would be present in a sample. We should be able to put this “Covid” snake venom nonsense to bed right here. However, let’s press on a see what else we can uncover.
Antivenom = Monoclonal Antibodies
One thing I will give Dr. Ardis credit for is spotlighting the connection between the creation of antivenoms with the creation of monoclonal antibodies. The processes for both are very similar and the desired outcome is the exact same: the creation of theoretical antibodies. In the case of snake antivenom, it is normally created by a series of injections of the venom of a snake into an animal and then collecting the blood after a period of time. This is usually done through horses but other animals can be used as the host as well. Thus, the antivenom used for a snakebite victim is typically an injection of horse blood.
Both of these therapies have their basis in animal blood and the creation of the theoretical antibodies. Both are associated with toxic side effects. Sadly, while he was originally right about the fact that monoclonal antibodies are toxic and should not be used to treat the symptoms now collectively known as “Covid,” Dr. Ardis changed his tune when another doctor texted him asking if he would use antivenom for a snake bite:
“Last December, Dr Bryan Ardis received a text message from an Emergency Room physician friend of his that sent him down an unexpected and bizarre rabbit hole that may explain the adverse events from the vaccines that we’ve been reporting. The text read: “Hey Dr Ardis…If you got bit by a rattlesnake, would you go to a hospital and get anti-venom?”
“He says, “I realized, all of a sudden, monoclonal antibodies ARE anti-venom. The Federal Government doesn’t want us using anti-venom. Why are they fighting anti-venom and why are we finding anti-venom works against COVID? Is it not a virus? Is it a venom? This is what I want to know: Is COVID a venom and is this why they don’t want you using monoclonal antibodies?”
Do you see the trick? They want you to equate monoclonal antibodies with antivenom. This is supposed to be an “aha” moment where you realize that there is no way that you would not inject antivenom (i.e. horse blood) into yourself if bitten by a snake. It’s a no-brainer, right? We have all seen the movies where a person is bitten by a venomous snake and quickly dies if not given the antivenom.
If you are willing to accept the injection of horse blood into your body to survive a snake bite, why wouldn’t you also inject the cancer-cell cultured blood of genetically altered mice in order to combat “Covid?”
As Dr. Ardis points out, monoclonal antibodies are essentially antivenom. However, he wrongly states that monoclonal antibodies are an effective therapy. According to a September 2021 Cochrane review of the available studies, they found insufficient evidence to claim that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for “SARS-COV-2:”
Are laboratory-made, COVID-19-specific monoclonal antibodies an effective treatment for COVID-19?
“The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate.We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.”
In other words, the evidence for the usefulness of monoclonal antibodies is non-existent. Unfortunately, the Cochrane Review failed to point out that there are various risks and adverse reactions associated with their use:
Do mAbs have risks?
“Therapeutic mAbs, typically administered by intravenous (IV) infusion, have been a valuable and generally safe treatment option for a variety of conditions for many years. However, they are also known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed.Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity.”
In January 2022, the FDA restricted the use of some monoclonal therapies (Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab) that are authorized against “Covid-19” as they were shown to be ineffective:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Limits Use of Certain Monoclonal Antibodies to Treat COVID-19 Due to the Omicron Variant
“In light of the most recent information and data available, today, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments– bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.
Because data show these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant,which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States, these treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time. In the future, if patients in certain geographic regions are likely to be infected or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments, then use of these treatments may be authorized in these regions.
Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens such as viruses, like SARS-CoV-2. And like other infectious organisms, SARS-CoV-2 can mutate over time, resulting in certain treatments not working against certain variants such as omicron. This is the case with these two treatments for which we’re making changes today.”
On April 16th, 2022, the FDA revoked the use of Bamlanivimab alone as it’s benefits were shown not to outweigh its risks. Somehow despite this evidence, the FDA still allows for it to be used in combination with Etesevimab, even though they previously revoked their use together in January 2022:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Monoclonal Antibody Bamlanivimab
“Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and certain pediatric patients. Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of SARS-CoV-2 viral variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure,the FDA has determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use. Therefore, the agency determined that the criteria for issuance of an authorization are no longer met and has revoked the EUA.
On Nov. 9, 2020, based on the totality of scientific evidence available at the time, the FDA issued an EUA to Eli Lilly and Co. authorizing the emergency use of bamlanivimab alone for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Importantly, although the FDA is now revoking this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone. The FDA believes that these alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain appropriate to treat patients with COVID-19 when used in accordance with the authorized labeling based on information available at this time.”
If the FDA’s confusing revoking of the EUA’s of these monoclonal antibodies has you concerned that you will not be able to use them against an imaginary “virus,” don’t worry. The FDA authorized the use of a new “Omicron-specific” monoclonal antibody called Bebtelovimab on February 11th, 2022. Granted, it still carries the same risks, adverse side effects, and uncertainty over clinical worsening listed for the previously ineffective antibody therapies. From the FDA fact sheet:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant
“Possible side effects of bebtelovimab include itching, rash, infusion-related reactions, nausea and vomiting. Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other SARS-CoV2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab. In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19.”
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant
Hypersensitivity Including Anaphylaxis and Infusion-Related Reactions: Serious hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been observed with administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with administration of bebtelovimab. If clinically significant hypersensitivity reactions occur, discontinue and initiate appropriate supportive care. Infusion-related reactions may occur up to 24 hours post injection. These reactions may be severe or life threatening. (5.1)
Clinical Worsening After SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Administration: Clinical worsening of COVID-19 after administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and may include signs or symptoms of fever, hypoxia or increased respiratory difficulty, arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia), fatigue, and altered mental status. Some of these events required hospitalization. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19. (5.2)
Limitations of Benefit and Potential for Risk in Patients with Severe COVID-19: Treatment with bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies, such as bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation. (5.3)
It should be fairly clear that, unlike Dr. Ardis’ claims, monoclonal antibodies are not effective, carry numerous risky side effects, and can actually worsen the disease they are supposed to treat. Interestingly, this same risk of dangerous side effects and worsening disease outcomes is associated with snake antivenom as well. From the fact sheet of a commonly used antivenom for rattlesnake bites, we find these admitted side effects:
Rattlesnake Antivenin Side Effects Center
“Rattlesnake Antivenin (antivenin crotalidae polyvalent) is an antivenin product used only to treat envenomation caused by bites of crotalids (pit vipers) including rattlesnakes, copperhead and cottonmouth moccasins, and others. Common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as flushing, itching, hives, swelling of the face/tongue/throat, cough, shortness of breath, blue color to the skin, vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction).”
“Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered. An immediate reaction (e.g. shock, anaphylaxis) usually occurs within 30 minutes. Symptoms and signs may develop before the needle is withdrawn and may include apprehension, flushing, itching, urticaria; edema of the face, tongue, and throat; cough, dyspnea, cyanosis, vomiting, and collapse. There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use.”
“Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered.30 The incubation period may be less than 5 days, especially in those who have received horse-serum-containing preparations in the past. The usual symptoms and signs are malaise, fever, urticaria, lymphadenopathy, edema, arthralgia, nausea, and vomiting. Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis. Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms. Pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop.”
Maybe the use of antivenom to treat a snakebite isn’t the super cure it has been sold to be? Is it possible that, as with many pharmaceutical products and interventions, the antivenom itself is creating the very symptoms it is said to treat? For some further insight, let’s look at a few highlights from an paper from September 2019, right before this “crisis,” which reviewed the use of antivenom and had a few revealing claims about the “anti” toxin. You will see it reiterated that the injection of antivenom created from either horse, sheep, goats, and/or rabbits can cause immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis or a delayed “serum sickness” which can occur weeks after the treatment. It is stated that the antivenom has limited efficacy and can be entirely ineffective based on the geographic location. Improper use of antivenom contributes to increased servere outcomes and the production of antibodies in animals leads to a large number (70%) of immunoglobulins that do not react to snake venom:
Perspective on the Therapeutics of Anti-Snake Venom
3. Current Information in the Design of New Antivenoms
“Currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses [14,15]. Hyperimmunized animals produce antibodies against the venom proteins and serum is extracted from their blood for the treatment of envenomation [6,16]. Conventional serum therapy aims to bind and neutralize the snake venom proteins [17]. It is a fact that the antivenom allows the body to try to reverse the damage caused by the venom. However, it is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:
Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia. Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects [18];
Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability;
Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes;
Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both.
“Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom. Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins [26]. Despite the abovementioned facts, this is the only FDA approved therapy to treat snake venom.”
A few other studies also point out the severe reactions regularly attributed to the use of antivenom. The first is a study from 2016 which points out that not only are adverse reactions common, they occur at a high rate. It is stated that this is due to poor quality control and manufacturing problems:
Adverse reactions to snake antivenom, and their prevention and treatment
“Antivenom is the mainstay of treatment of snakebite envenoming. However, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent. Both acute (anaphylactic or pyrogenic) and delayed (serum sickness type) reactions occur. Acute reactions are usually mild but severe systemic anaphylaxis may develop, often within an hour or so of exposure to antivenom. Serum sickness after antivenom has a delayed onset between 5 and 14 days after its administration. Ultimately, the prevention reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom.”
“The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors. This highlights the importance of addressing issues related to poor quality and potentially unsafe antivenom. Ultimately, the prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom. Until these improvements take place, doctors will have to depend on pharmacological prophylaxis as well as careful observation of patients receiving antivenom in preparation for prompt management of acute as well as delayed reactions when they occur.”
This next source is from 2018 and it points out that early antivenoms were unsafe and caused severe life-threatening events. While they now have “acceptable” safety profiles, antivenoms still have varying quality and range from 10% adverse reactions to greater than 50%. This same variation in quality is seen in the production of monoclonal antibodies:
Antivenom therapy: efficacy of premedication for the prevention of adverse reactions
“However, in their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects [8]. The main reason was that first antivenoms were poorly purified preparations or crude sera. Over the years, for many of the original applications, heterologous serums were replaced by other drugs with better safety profiles, such as antibiotics, vaccines and homologous serums. However, in cases of envenomation by snakes, scorpions or arachnids, antivenoms remain the only effective treatment [4]. Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit acceptable safety profiles [1, 9, 10]. Nevertheless, antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50% [11, 12].”
In is interesting to note that there are many factors that are said to influence the severity of a venomous snakebite including the age, sex, and health of the person bitten as well as the type of snake, the geographical location of the snake, the season the bite occurred in, what the snake ate, and how recently the snake released its venom. Antivenoms themselves have been shown to have varying effects in quality due to the geographical location of the snake which somehow renders the antivenom ineffective and even dangerous in different countries and continents, even against the same type of snake. It is said that this has kept locals from seeking out medical care and sticking to traditional healers:
“Snake venoms are highly complicated. At least 26 separate enzymes have been identified with 10 of these enzymes common to all snake venoms (though in different concentrations). All snake bites are not equal. The quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously.”
“A study led by Dr Fry has found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions.
Researchers tested the effectiveness of two African and two Indian saw-scaled viper antivenoms against saw-scaled vipers from 10 regions.
The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges.
One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers.
The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian regions. It failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers.
“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry says.
“In Kenya, snakebite deaths have increased dramatically after hospitals switched supplies of a very effective African antivenom with a cheaper Indian variety.”
“This creates a knock-on effect in these communities. It’s hard enough to convince people living in these regions not to go to traditional healers to treat snakebite. And if someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom, it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom.”
Viper venom’s lethal evolution
It’s the variety of the saw-scaled viper’s prey, from rodents to insects, that researchers say could be the reason why antivenom from one region might not work in another.
“Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes,” UQ PhD candidate in Toxinology Bianca op den Brouw wrote in an article for The Conversation.
“Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet.
“Different saw-scaled viper populations feed on different prey. The physiology of these prey animals differs, and this dictates what makes a toxin effective.
“From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom.”
Maybe the proceeding information on how snakebite antivenoms are created as well as the high rate of adverse events from the antibodies used for antivenom now has you questioning that initial “no-brainer” thought: “Of course I would use antivenom if bit by a snake.” If so, you are on the right track as, based on information from the African Snakebite Institute, in most snake bite cases, antivenom is not used and many snake bites are often unattended and/or unreported. In fact, it is apparently a well-known “myth” (i.e. truth in this case) that the antivenom kills more people than the snake venom itself. Most people (over 80%) never receive antivenom as, like the previous sources stated, it can have disastrous side-effects. Most snake bites do not cause symptoms warranting the use of something so toxic. In fact, snake bite victims are not immediately injected with antivenom and typically are sent home after observation:
“Yet people often have a poor understanding of how it works and there are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself.”
“Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite) as most victims are not severely envenomated or the bite may be from a snake that is not considered potentially deadly or is not covered by the antivenom (Rhombic Night Adder, Berg Adder and Stiletto Snake). Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects. The biggest danger is an acute allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) or, to a lesser degree, serum sickness that can affect the immune system several days after treatment.”
“Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use. The majority of snakes have control over their venom glands and are quite reluctant to waste their venom on humans. They very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious. Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home.”
“As already mentioned, some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used. Some of those victims go into anaphylactic shock which is a life-threatening medical condition and must be treated with adrenaline. This has to do with the fact that our antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins.”
Bill Haast – repeated snake bite victim from the world’s deadliest snakes tragically died at the young age of 100 from natural causes. ?
If snake bites regularly do not cause symptoms and do not require the use of antivenom, are snake bites really as toxic and harmful as we previously thought? Are the dangerous side effects linked to snake bites really just the reactions to having horse blood injected into the body as treatment? Is this another case where the treatment causes the symptoms of disease it was supposed to prevent? If the examples of these next few individuals are taken into consideration, it’s entirely plausible to conclude that we have been misled about the dangers stemming from snakebites in order to cover for the toxic effects of the treatment:
Repeated snake bite for recreation: Mechanisms and implications
“There is a debate in the fatality/immunity due to repeated snake bites in human beings either accidentally or incidentally. Haast and Winer[11] reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus[11] and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier.”
This snake-man got himself bitten over 200 times to become immune to venom
“Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was fatally injured about 20 times.”
“In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times as per the report published in Today I Found Out.“
Man makes deadly snakes bite him 160 times in hunt for human antidote
“An amateur scientist has deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom.
Tim Friede is obsessed by finding a human antidote to poisonous snake bites, which kill an estimated 100,000 people every year.
Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra.
He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites.
“It really hurts and it swells but that’s it,” he said.”
Poison pass: the man who became immune to snake venom
“A lot has been written about Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, and lately his life has turned into a non-stop frenzy of international journalists and film crews revelling in the seeming sheer insanity of it.”
“He’s been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years. “Snakes are fucking everywhere. The symbol for medicine is two snakes. They’re ingrained in our brain and DNA,” he tells me, proudly insisting that he hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”. And it’s tempting to believe him. He does look undeniably fit.”
The Photographer Who Was Bitten by a Black Mamba… and Got the Shot “After several minutes and then hours passed and Laita was still feeling fine — experts recommend heading straight for a hospital, by the way — the crew concluded that Laita didn’t have any venom in his system. The photographer believes that it was either a “dry bite,” when a snake doesn’t release any venom, or that his heavy flow of blood pushed out the venom.”
As can be seen, there are numerous examples of people being deliberately and accidentally bitten by the world’s deadliest snakes who are completely fine and do not require treatment from antivenom whatsoever. Are we to conclude that these people are the lucky few who somehow have amazing super-human “immune” systems that render snake venom ineffective? Or have snake bites and the associated symptoms of venom toxicity been blown out of proportion? Could this be a case where some have had bad reactions to a snake bite just as there are those who have severe allergic reactions to bee stings while the majority of snake bite and bee sting victims come away unscathed? Could this be similar to the supposed rabies cases where the majority of those who were bitten by “rabid” animals actually went on to be just fine without getting the rabies vaccination?
The Treatments Are Worse Than the Disease
It’s very apparent that in the case of monoclonal antibodies and anivenom, the adverse effects of the drugs are actually worse than the supposed diseases they are meant to treat. Could this be due to the fact that, like “viruses,” so-called antibodies have never been properly purified, isolated, and proven to exist? The results of studies using antibodies are regularly unreproducible and irreplicable. It is well-known that antibodies are in fact not as specific as are they are claimed to be and are said to regularly bind to the wrong proteins. Perhaps it is difficult to produce safe and effective products when the entities that are supposed to be produced and supplied in the animal blood are entirely theoretical? Maybe the ridiculous snake venom theory should be viewed in the context that it is a bad idea to be injecting anything, let alone animal blood, into our bodies in an attempt to make ourselves feel better when trusting the body and allowing it to heal is often times the best course of action we can take.
In Summary:
Dr. Bryan Ardis put forth a theory that snake venom is the cause of “Covid-19” primarily based on fraudulent genomic data
The snake connection stems from research linking proteins from the fabricated “SARS-COV-2” genome to bat and snake “coronavirus” proteins
The enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom
These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals
Dr. Ardis pointed out that, based on a text, he uncovered the connection between antivenom and monoclonal antibodies and stated that theyare the same thing
He wrongly concluded that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for snake poisons that could be in the vaccines, Remdesivir, and water
According to a Sept 2021 Cochrane Review, their certainty in the evidence for the use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of “Covid” for all non-hospitalised individuals was low, and for hospitalised individuals was very low to moderate
They considered the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with “SARS-CoV-2-neutralising” mAbs
Monoclonal antibodies are known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed
Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity
In February 2022, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments – bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments
The data showed these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States
These treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time
Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens
In April 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate “COVID-19” in adults and certain pediatric patients
Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of “SARS-CoV-2 viral” variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use
Importantly, although the FDA revoked this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone
In other words, the use of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab was revoked as well as the use of Bamlanivimab but they can still be used together as an alternative to Bamlanivimab alone…
For the Omicron-specific Bebtelovimab authorized by the FDA in February 2022, possible side effects include
Itching
Rash
Infusion-related reactions
Nausea
Vomiting
Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other “SARS-CoV2” monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab
In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab
The FDA claims that it is not known if these events were related to “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of “COVID-19”
Treatment with Bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to “COVID-19”
Monoclonal antibodies, such as Bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with “COVID-19” requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation
Antivenom carries the same risks of severe side effects and worsening condition as monoclonal antibodies
The listing for common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as:
Flushing
Iitching
Hives
Swelling of the face/tongue/throat
Cough
Shortness of breath
Blue color to the skin
Vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction)
Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered
There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use
Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered
The usual symptoms and signs are:
Malaise
Fever
Urticaria
Lymphadenopathy
Edema
Arthralgia
Nausea
Vomiting
Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis
Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms and pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop
A 2019 review on antivenom stated that currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses
It is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:
Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia.
Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects
Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability
Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes
Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both
Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom
Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins
According to a 2016 study, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent
The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors
The prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom
According to their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects
Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit “acceptable” safety profiles yet antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50%
All snake bites are not equal and the quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously
A study led by Dr. Fry found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions
The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges
One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers
The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian regionand it failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers
“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry said
If someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom,it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom
Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes
Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet
From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom
There are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself
Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite
Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects
Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use
Snakes very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious
Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home
Some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used
This has to do with the fact that antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins
Haast and Winer reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier
Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was seriously injured about 20 times
In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times
An amateur scientist named Tim Friede deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom
Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra
He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites
Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, has been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years
He hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”
A photographer was bit by the deadliest snake, a Black Mamba, and after hours passed, he was still feeling fine and needed no treatment
The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent “SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place. Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.
Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines, the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have a few purposes:
To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a singular cause.
To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial evidence that is easily debunked.
If we are to take the claims of Dr. Ardis seriously that the symptoms associated with snake venom is the true cause of a disease known as “Covid-19,” how does his theory explain for the fact that the antivenom and monoclonal antibody treatments cause the exact same symptoms of the disease they are supposed to treat? How would it be determined that the worsening clinical outcomes after injection are from the snake bites/venom rather than the antivenom/monoclonal antibodies given as treatment? How does his theory account for the numerous instances where people have been deliberately bitten by snakes, injected with the venom of snakes, and drank of the venom of the snakes with little to no harmful effects whatsoever? How does his theory account for the fact that the vast majority of “Covid” cases are asymptomatic and the vast majority of snake bite cases need no treatment at all? There are many holes in this theory which will easily be picked apart to make those who follow it look foolish for having done so.
There is no “SARS-COV-2.” There is no “Covid-19.” There is no new disease nor any new symptoms of disease requiring treatment from vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, NAC, nor any other treatment. There is no need for any anti-venom supplements.
Beware those who will sell you the cause of the disease and the solution.
“Darkness has the ability to cover up; light has the ability to uncover! Darkness is the enemy of truth; light is the friend of truth!
~ Mehet Murat ildan
Sometimes acceptance of obvious truth is so stark and thought to be fraught with treachery, that it is literally ignored by the many; making it more comfortable to remain hidden in madness amidst the shadows of deception and lies. While taking responsibility is the only way forward, fear of the truth often wins out, as reliance on collective ignorance gives the false illusion of safety. This behavior is always severely destructive over time, and any psychological relief always temporary, but much more often than not, it is the easy way out for the non-thinking and frightened societal herd. This natural flaw in the makeup of man is well known by the ruling class, and therefore taken advantage of in order to quell dissent and rebellion while gaining further control.
Considering our recent and current history, this was the tactic used for the entirety of the ‘covid’ scam. So long as voluntary acceptance of state propaganda by the masses prevails, this strategy will continually be used going forward in order to perpetuate the advancement of the takeover of humanity in the name of the “Great Reset.” That brings us to the latest threat by the purveyors of evil who have been allowed to rule without resistance. They claim, as voiced by former Trump appointed director of the CDC, Robert Redfield, that the next wave of monumental death worldwide will be due to a non-existent mystery bird flu. This approach by government to manufactured threats, has been around for a very long time, and in the past has been used to frighten the weak, but it is simply a lie.
Threats of avian bird flu, swine flu, including SARS, among many others, have been weapons of the state meant to accelerate panic where none is warranted for very many years. It is imperative to understand that these toxic concoctions are all manmade in labs using gain of function to create bio-weapons. They are not natural, or some lethal strain that just so-happened to affect birds or other animals by accident, and magically jumped to humans. Even the idea of this is ludicrous. If in fact, any such sickness or disease of these types were actually causing mass death, it would only be due to a purposeful release of a bio-weapon by the state, not any innate strain of a normal malady. Knowing this, how could entire populations continue to be so fooled by propaganda?
In 1997, the CDC said that “avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses first spread from poultry to infect humans in Hong Kong resulting in the deaths of 6 of 18 infected persons.” Because of this, the evil WHO and the U.S. sought to increase pandemic preparedness, obviously knowing that this would be useful indoctrination in order to create panic due to future plans to gain power over society. All of this was aligned with the WHO’s “global framework.”
In 2002, SARS was said to be the new disease to fear, and SARS-CoV was to be the “model for future pandemics.” In March of 2003, the ‘novel’ coronavirus, SARS-CoV, was said to be isolated, a lie, and identified and sequenced by nothing other than PCR, an impossibility. There was even the spectre of a future “catastrophic pandemic,” and investigations of live animal markets, as the supposed first case was found in Hong Kong, and said to be able to spread by infected persons traveling by airplane. Does this sound familiar or suspicious to any thinking individual? Is this not the same exact fraud that took place beginning in 2020, two decades later?
In March of 2006, Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, an obvious expert on bird flu, was worried about a bird flu strike any day. “I can’t predict, but I certainly have to say that we should be prepared for the possibility that at some point in the next few months, a wild fowl will come over the migratory pathway and will be infected with H5N1.”
As far back as 1976, the H1N1 Swine Flu hoax took center stage, as the government and its controlled media propaganda campaign went into high gear in order to create a pandemic fraud so as to mass-vaccinate the U.S. population against a non-existent ‘swine flu.’ This conspiracy was also used as a way to get all ‘vaccinations’ available into every person possible. This led directly to 45 million people getting unnecessary injections. At the time, the CDC stated that 80% of the population needed to be ‘vaccinated,’ just as was sought in the ‘covid’ scam.
Again in 2009, the H1N1 fraud was revived, and another government call for mass ‘vaccination’ was issued. As always, the collusion between national and global ‘health organizations, government and government officials, pharmaceutical companies, and corporate insiders was evident. Nothing today has changed, it has only gotten worse, and in fact, the risk now due to the world takeover plot is much more sinister, and globally structured.
In the distant past, while control was a key factor, money from mass ‘vaccination’ was the primary goal. Today, money is a factor, but control of the minds and bodies of the proletariat herds is the result most desired by the ruling ‘elites.’ In addition, depopulation and eugenic transformation of the rest of society, all by way of controlling and lethal injection of a bio-weapon, is what is needed in order to finish the global takeover agenda.
This is a long-term plot to fool the public into believing and expecting that a future pandemic of epoch proportions is imminent. The very idea that ‘natural’ pandemics are inevitable has long been planned and embedded in the minds of the people. This is a multi-decade brainwashing of the common people in order to prepare them for not only mass sickness and death, but also for acceptance of a global governing body with unlimited power.
The most sought-after goal at this time is mass ‘vaccination,’ but this time is different in that the preferred injections are much more dangerous, much more able to physically and psychologically control large numbers of those who have taken the jab, and cause mass death beyond anything seen before. In order to accomplish such a deadly and evil agenda, the people will need to be fooled once again. They will have to believe the lies, and accept that all the impending deaths due to the weaponized ‘covid’ injections, are in fact due to a fraudulent and purposely crafted plot to place blame on a non-existent ‘virus’ that is being called an “avian bird flu.”
The ‘warning’, or more accurately, the foretelling of mass death by the ruling class, as outlined by the ex-CDC commandant Robert Redfield, is that 800 million to 4 billion of us will die due to some mystery bird flu. When the mass deaths occur, it will not be due to any flu or ‘virus,’ it will be due only to the toxic poison that has been previously injected into billions of unsuspecting, order-following slaves to the state.
What type of contamination might be found in a spiked COVID vaccine?
“A foreign body.”
The lot is being recalled due to a foreign body being found in one vial in the lot manufactured at the company’s contract manufacturing site, ROVI – Moderna and ROVI Pharma Industrial Services
Moderna Pharmaceutical, formerly named ModeRNA Therapeutics, became a public company in 2018, specializing in infectious diseases. Prior to the IPO, AstraZeneca was its third-largest investor.
Moderna’s coronavirus shot, known as “SPIKEVAX,” was said to have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adults 18 and older on Jan. 31, 2022. But according the the FDA Factsheet, the shot is still only Emergency Use Authorized or EUA. Not approved!
Since November 2020, two of the 4 Biotech companies working to manufacture mRNA “therapies,” — Johnson & Johnson and AstraZenica — had to halt trials over safety concerns. And now the spotlight shines on Moderna’s mRNA vaccine deployment in Europe.
The contaminated lot in question was manufactured at the ROVI site in Spain, and distributed in Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden from 13-14 January 2022. Reports tie the recalled batches to the Spanish company, ROVI.
Criminal Acts
Will Moderna be investigated for fraud, product safety, death by vaccine?
In February 2021, US officials investigated and acknowledged a “likely association” between Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and myocarditis in adolescents and young people. Of course, the PREP Act and CARES Act both limit liability for death or serious physical injury resulting from these products. See also Moderna’s disclosure in the SPIKEVAX package insert, referencing Myocarditis and Pericarditis, Section 5.2.
All Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trails are ongoing and not due to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The treatments are currently experimental with only 1 year of short-term data and no long term safety data available.
In November 2020 Dr Andreas Noack, a German chemist and one of the EU’s top graphene experts, released a video explaining that he had discovered graphene hydroxide contained in the COVID-19 experimental treatments. He described how the graphene hydroxide nano structures injected into the human body act as ‘razor blades’ inside the veins of recipients and how they would not show up on an autopsy or normal toxicology tests given their atomic size. On 26th November 2021, just hours after publishing his latest video about graphene hydroxide, he died in suspicious circumstances. [See Summary].
Professor Dr Pablo Campra, University of Almeria, Spain also examined Covid-19 experimental treatments in November 2021 using Micro-Raman Spectroscopy, the study of frequencies. He also confirmed the presence of graphene oxide.
Today’s high drug prices show little has changed since 1963, when The Federal Trade Commission ruled that six of the nation’s largest drug companies were conspiring to fix prices on tetracycline, the most widely used antibiotic. The Kefauver drug hearings confirmed the existence of a national crime syndicate and revealed lax enforcement that continues to this day. Note, one of the “big six” criminals, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, was absorbed by Pfizer.
Gene Therapy or Gene Reset?
Experts contend that the technology in the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna shots are not “gene therapy.” But that is not how the experimental products had first been marketed.
According to a November 2021 article at LifeSiteNews, during the 2021 Global Health Summit in Berlin, Bayer executive, Stefan Oelrich, told fellow “experts” that the mRNA COVID “vaccines” are actually “cell and gene therapy” that would have otherwise been rejected by the public if not for a “pandemic” and favorable marketing.
Oelrich also highlighted the term, “Bio Revolution” as:
a confluence of advances in biological science and accelerating development of computing, automation, and artificial intelligence [that] is fueling a new wave of innovation.
As part of his company’s role for “sustainability” Bayer also pledged to push contraception on 100 million women across the world. This rhetoric fits hand-in-glove with Klaus Schwab’s Socialist plan for the “Great Reset.”
Damage from the mRNA injectables are surfacing. According to an October 2021 study in the American Journal of Cardiology:
Sixty percent of the myocarditis related COVID-19 vaccine cases were associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 33% were associated with the Moderna vaccine, and 7% were associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
According to a November 2021 abstract published in the Journal Circulation titled, “Observational Findings of PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines:”
…the mRNA vacs numerically increase all markers previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle…
Ignorance Is No Excuse
Ignorance is no excuse in the Age of Information. As more information surfaces, do not expect drug companies to change their criminal ways.
The information is available and viewable for anyone who can do a Google search. Drug companies have subtly disclosed the information if you can read about it here.
If any change will come of these revelations, that change rests with each of us. There are no “good” or “bad” experiences. There is only “experience” from which we all choose to learn more.
Children today are being systematically and deliberately destroyed – both mentally and physically.
We are horrified at the way children were pushed up chimneys in the 19th century. Making children work long, arduous hours was considered normal at the time but the children abused in this way were scarred physically and mentally for life.
Today, we like to think that that sort of cruelty is today confined to those parts of the world where children are employed as slave labour in order to dig out the rare minerals needed to make batteries for electric cars.
And, of course, to the factories where slave labourers make overpriced plimsolls or manufacture mobile phones – all at such a low prices that billionaires can progress up the ladder and become even richer.
We like to think that most countries in the so-called developed world have moved on. We close our eyes to the billionaires growing ever richer on the backs of slave labour children.
Those pulling down statues of 19th century slave traders still buy the electric cars, the mobile phones and the absurd shoes and ignore the uncomfortable truths about how they were made.
In the 19th century, child labour was seen as normal and acceptable. In both physical and psychological terms what we are doing now is even worse.
For no sensible, medical reason our world has been turned upside down and millions of children will never recover. (In Africa, of course, millions of children will die as a result of the lockdowns and deliberately staged global panic.)
There is evidence that as a result of the covid hysteria many children have become withdrawn and frightened of approaching strangers – especially if they are not wearing masks.
A children’s charity has seen a massive rise in the incidence of mental and emotional problems in children under 11 years of age. Children are worried about dying, about their friends and family dying, about their future, about missing school, about loneliness, about future epidemics. The AIDS hysteria of the 20th century has become the covid hysteria of the 21st century.
As a result many are either not eating, or eating too much, and they are not sleeping. Panic attacks are becoming commonplace. A study of 10,000 parents showed that 30% of children were worried about catching the virus and 30% were worried about missing their education. Even more worrying 16% were afraid to leave their homes. More than half of the parents were worried about their children.
And yet deaths among healthy children are so rare that it has been suggested that lightning is a bigger threat to children and that it would make more sense to tell children to wear helmets to protect them against meteors than to recommend that they wore masks or practised social distancing.
Nevertheless, schools introduced masks and social distancing, and many teachers and parents want the restrictions to continue indefinitely – until the very last virus on earth has disappeared.
In Ohio, electronic beams were introduced to track school pupils and to enforce social distancing.
In China, robots have been installed to ensure that children wash their hands properly.
Some schools have installed thermal imaging cameras to see if children have a temperature. (This is entirely pointless).
One educational establishment in the US made a viral tracking app mandatory and students were constantly tracked. Students who turned off the app or tried to leave the campus without permission were expelled.
Under normal circumstances, young children touch and hug one another and derive great comfort from this.
Forcing children to remain isolated has created huge psychological problems. Children from poorer families or where there is an unhappy home life have suffered most. Also, the lack of exercise will result in health problems and obesity.
The problems have been exacerbated by threats that children who do not obey the rules `may kill granny’. (The irony is that their government wants to kill granny with blanket DNR notices in hospitals and care homes and by denying medical treatment to older citizens.) Children have seen adults frightened and as a result child terror has been exacerbated.
Many children have become socio-phobic and are developing OCD.
Figures for suicide are nigh on impossible to obtain but suicide is widely recognised to be a leading cause of death in the 5-19 age group, and one survey showed a 50% increase in suicides in 2020 compared to 2019. I suspect the figure will grow.
In an attempt to escape from reality, children are spending vast amounts of time on the internet. Gaming addiction is becoming an increasing problem with cyberbullying adding to anxiety and depression. Sports and out of school activities have been abandoned or disrupted leading to increased boredom, loneliness and depression.
Equally worrying is the fact that altered behaviour in children will frequently be diagnosed as ADHD and drugs such as Ritalin will be prescribed as a long-term remedy.
All this for an infection which children hardly ever catch and hardly ever transmit.
It’s all madness.
The whole fraud was deliberately designed by billionaires and their evil supporters.
And although politicians, their advisors and the medical establishment are guilty of mass genocide for the part they have played, parents and school teachers must also be held responsible.
If parents and teachers had done a little research, they would have known (and would know) that the covid-19 scare is fraudulent.
Their children’s lives have been sacrificed for nothing.
As the World Council for Health (WCH), our partners and allies have already sought to draw attention to, the World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a global pandemic agreement that will give it undemocratic rights over sovereign people. See the WCH Open Letter in response to this attempted power grab here.
WHO has quietly opened the floor for comments on the agreement but has provided little time to do so ahead of the first round of hearings scheduled for April 12 and 13.
We encourage everyone to share their thoughts with World Health Organization before the deadline.
1. Go to the World Health Organization website to submit a written submission now
Written submissions are short and can be up to 250 words/1250 characters. The deadline for written submissions is 3 pm UTC on Wednesday, April 13.
Submissions must be in response to the provided guiding question: What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?
The prompt provided by the WHO does not ask the people of the world whether or not they believe a global agreement is necessary. Instead, the organization has decided for itself that this measure is warranted and is asking for input on what people believe should be included in it.
Refrain from making any statements unrelated to the topic at hand; and
Be presented in a respectful manner, free of any profanity, ad hominem attacks, vulgarity, or other inappropriate language.
If participation, spoken or written, does not conform with these requirements, as determined solely by WHO, the participation will not be receivable. This means that WHO may call speakers to order, and/or discontinue speakers’ connections, and elect to not post written statements.
Why do I need to frame my submission using WHO’s provided context?
Because the WHO reserves the right to judge the relevancy of submissions, it is important to respond to the prompt in an appropriate yet constructive manner. As such, the World Council for Health suggests the following elements be addressed:
National and local leadership retain full autonomy, reserving the right to make decisions based on what is best for their own people.
The ability of nations and local municipalities to opt out of any and all portions of the agreement as they see fit, without consequence.
An open and transparent process with the ability for all people of the world to vote on including failsafe measures that will prevent the application of the global agreement in places where a majority of the people do not want it.
Measures that do not allow for influence in the process by any and all pharmaceutical companies or other global health profiteers.
The hearing will be livestreamed here on Tuesday, April 12.
cover image based on creative commons work of Caniceus
Dr. Naomi Wolf at Defeat the Mandates Rally: “You Hurt Our Kids & Watch Out. Because You Have Never Faced the Rage of Thousands of Mothers & Stepmothers”
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Jeffrey Beauchine said his mother, Carol, knew her Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease was related to the Moderna shot. Watching her death was like “something you see out of a movie,” he said.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Carol’s son, Jeffrey Beauchine, said it was excruciating to watch his 70-year-old mother — who was healthy until she got the vaccine — die from a disease he believes the vaccine caused.
“I’ve seen a lot in my 20 years as a police officer,” Beauchine said. “I’ve seen hundreds of people shot and this affected me more than anything.”
Beauchine said Carol received her first dose of Moderna on Feb. 16, 2021, and didn’t report any complaints. After getting the second dose on March 17, Carol immediately said she “felt different.”
Beauchine said:
“On March 17, she got her second dose and immediately started having reactions to the second dose. She just had this malaise. She just didn’t feel right and said she just felt ‘off.’ She had what she described as pain and burning at the injection site — like someone was tying a hot rope around her arm. Then she explained it as this numbness setting in around the injection site.”
Beauchine said he and his family members didn’t think it was a usual side effect, but they also didn’t think it was unusual.
“We just thought it was a result of the jab working through the system,” Beauchine said. “Then the numbness spread up through her neck and down her left arm.”
The numbness altered Carol’s hearing and spread “down through her hands” until the left hand lost sensation and mobility.
Beauchine said:
“At this point, it was her entire left arm. She started to develop insomnia. She would go a couple of days at a time without sleep and then she was fatigued. This numbness continued to spread. It went down to her hip and moved to her knees, then the entire left side. You could almost bisect her body and the left side was numb and the right side was normal.”
Beauchine said Carol went to the doctors — who initially thought she had suffered a stroke — but her MRI scans were completely normal.
“Nobody could find anything wrong with her so they sent her home,” Beauchine said. “It was almost like reassurance, while at the same time I wondered why they couldn’t.”
Carol then developed tremors in her left arm.
“It was almost like her arm would start jerking involuntarily,” Beauchine said. “Then the tremors moved on to the left leg.”
Beauchine added:
“My mother began to complain that something was wrong with her brain. She said she couldn’t put thoughts together or make sense of things but she could still communicate. Over the phone, you wouldn’t see the altered version of my mom I knew for 44 years.”
Then Carol developed double vision that ultimately led to blindness, and she began to hallucinate.
“She would see herself falling out of the chair and she would physically see herself on the ground,” Beauchine said. “It was weird to understand. She developed a fear of water and would become scared she was near a body of water.”
Doctors believed Carol was suffering from anxiety because of the shot and started treating her for anxiety. Meanwhile, Carol lost the ability to walk.
Beauchine said:
“She was still at home at this time because the hospital couldn’t find anything wrong with her. She was pretty much in a wheelchair. She went from the one who takes care of everybody to my 70-year-old father taking care of her. Then it got too hard for him and during one doctor’s visit they admitted her to see if they could dive into it further.
Beauchine said doctors ran every test “under the sun,” including an MRI, but couldn’t find anything. The only things doctors noticed were the obvious mobility problems on the left side of her body and balance problems.
The doctors also said there was “something off with her cerebellum but they didn’t know what it was,” he added. Carol tried to explain to the doctors that there was something “internally” wrong with her.
“She was then released to a nursing home,” Beauchine said. “It was the first time I saw my mom really sick.”
He said:
“She was in a nursing home where all this COVID was going on and we had to stand outside the window and yell through the air conditioner hole to talk to my mom. She felt defeated and scared, and my father cared for her 18 hours a day — spoon-feeding her — until the end. It just happened so fast.”
Eventually, Carol was able to get into a skilled nursing home, but she deteriorated rapidly.
“She lost the ability to feed herself because she couldn’t get the food on her fork to put it in her mouth,” Beauchine said. “It crushed me because I could see in her eyes without us having any convo, the fear and like she was defeated.”
Beauchine said there were no more good days and his mother lost the ability to communicate.
“By mid-end of July my mom was just a complete rigid person,” he said. “Lips stopped moving. She could only get a couple of syllables out. She would almost be falling out of a wheelchair in a forward position. She couldn’t tell if she was sitting up.”
Beauchine said his mother knew from the very beginning her condition was related to the shot.
“We all knew from the very beginning it was related to the shot, but we didn’t know the future significance of how bad this would get,” Beauchine said. “People have bad reactions all the time but you get over them. She didn’t get over them.”
Beauchine said the doctors didn’t know what to do because “it was just so new.”
“I’m more content with a doctor telling me they don’t know if it’s the shot because there’s no research than the doctors who say it’s definitely not the shot,” he said. “I got more ‘I don’t knows’ than denials.”
By the end of July, Carol’s husband couldn’t wake her up at the nursing home and the family had a meeting and decided their mother needed to go back to the hospital.
Beauchine said:
“When I rounded the corner, I saw my mom and it was like she was like yelling or howling. Her eyes were completely fixed in the open position. Her mouth was stuck in the open position and she had violent tremors that wouldn’t stop. She didn’t understand what was going on. The only way I can put it is a bomb went off inside of her head.
“It was excruciating for all of us. My dad was like a deer in the headlights — a blank look I had never seen before. And I’ve seen a lot of stuff in my life with my job but this was like … a bomb went off in my mom’s head and all of her limbs were convulsing and tremoring.
“It’s like something you see out of a movie. They say with this disease you come to the cliff and it’s just a drop-off and once you drop off you’re able to physically see that dropping point — and you could see it that night.”
Doctors sent Carol to Strong Memorial in Rochester, New York, and within weeks they confirmed she had CJD.
“We didn’t know what CJD was, but we were told it was like mad cow disease but like a different variant or different mode of getting it,” Beauchine said. “Same disease but a different way of getting it.”
Carol’s prognosis was fatal and the family was told she had only days left. Beauchine said a panel consisting of doctors and students who were overseeing Carol’s case were open to the fact they did not know what caused her CJD.
“People were learning and they said ‘we don’t know if this is related to the vaccine or not. We don’t know because the vaccine is new and there weren’t a lot of studies on the vaccine. We won’t know until the long-term.’”
Carol passed away on Aug. 2, 202, from CJD — a condition she did not have prior to receiving her second dose of Moderna a few months earlier. Her doctors filed a report with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS I.D. 2180699).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting vaccine adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. According to the CDC’s website, “CDC and [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy and medical records.”
Beauchine confirmed the family has never received any contact from the CDC regarding his mother’s death, and to his knowledge, her doctors haven’t either.
Beauchine said Carol was a relatively healthy person with no previous history of COVID. Her only underlying condition was arthritis.
“She was always taking care of other people and when the whole COVID thing broke out in the media, she wanted to stay protected so she could see her kids and grandkids,” Beauchine said. “She didn’t want to be hindered by the virus, so when the opportunity arose for her age group, she got the first dose with no complaints.”
Beauchine said he also received the COVID vaccine because it was required for his job.
“At the time, there was a little smidgeon of excitement because they had you so feared over COVID-19 and finally there was a little light at the end of the tunnel,” he said. “And it was going to be okay.”
He added:
“I got the vax. My wife got the vax. My father got the vax. My children will never get the vax. I’m not against a COVID-19 vaccine but it takes years and years and years of clinical trials and studies to deem something safe to put in the human body, and that wasn’t done. We all turned a blind eye to it at the time in moments of hope.
“I didn’t know any of this stuff that we know now, and then you come to find out that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been used off label for years, but to get the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), you have to show there’s no treatment available to be able to give that authorization, so they killed the treatments, gave the EUA, but there’s no liability on their end.
“It’s just scary nobody knew that at the time. If somebody wants to make an informed decision, let them know what they’re up against.”
Beauchine said when he talks to people, or his mother comes up in conversation, everyone seems to know someone who had a very serious reaction to a COVID vaccine.
“I am not an anti-vaxxer. I’m not crazy or anything like that,” Beauchine said. “But if I or my family can do anything to help somebody or inform somebody or even be a statistic that could come to some sort of positive resolution in all of this, so be it.”
He added:
“Watching someone slowly walk this path and their health degrading right before your eyes from day to day over a few months is terrible. It’s awful. No one should have to go through this. We all just felt for my mom the whole time. It affected us all.”
The Defender has received numerous reports of people who died from sporadic CJD after receiving a COVID vaccine — all women who were between the ages of 60 and 70. This includes Cheryl Cohen and Jennifer Deason Sprague.
According to the latest data from VAERS, between December 14, 2020, and April 1, 2022, there were 19 reported deaths due to CJD attributed to COVID vaccines. The majority of cases occurred in the 65 to 75 age range and involved a sudden onset of symptoms.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have funded the development and distribution of polio vaccines in developing regions like Asia and Africa (Image Source: GRAIN)
Current NHS information describes it as a ‘serious viral infection’ but adds that most people won’t even know they are infected. While some will experience ‘flu-like’ symptoms, others may become temporarily or permanently paralysed.
The term ‘polio’ is a description of spinal pathology: an inflammation of the grey marrow (polio muelos) of the brain stem and spinal cord. Symptoms vary wildly from none to fever, vomiting, bowel irritation, back pain, neck stiffness, problems with swallowing and breathing, paralysis, and death.
Poliovirus is an enterovirus that is activated in the human gut. The corporate science machine maintains that it is a dangerous pathogen spread by infected faecal matter but Dr Suzanne Humphries explains in her book, Dissolving Illusions, that it is a naturally occurring common bowel irritant that existed for millennia before it began crippling people — which poses the question: what changed?
One factor is pesticide usage, which is implicated in other neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. Polio incidence and pesticide usage closely correlate; if you plot them on a graph, they follow the same lines.
What came to be known as polio was once called ‘summer diarrhoea’ because local outbreaks occurred after crop spraying had taken place in the spring. Children played in contaminated soils and ate unwashed fruit; their parents reported finding them paralysed in apple orchards.
High consumption of sugary foods in the summer lowered immunity by suppressing white blood cell activity, creating the perfect environment for toxic pesticides to interact with viruses in the gut and cause illness.
Doctors noted that symptoms of polio resembled food poisoning.
Poor diet increased susceptibility to poliovirus infection – especially a diet full of refined sugar, white flour, and processed foods, which were introduced to the public during the industrial revolution, around the time that polio began to emerge.
British physician Michael Underwood first observed ‘debility of the lower extremities’ in children in 1789. It was the height of the industrial and agricultural revolutions in Europe and pesticide use skyrocketed. Most pesticides contained toxic metals such as lead and arsenic.
Lead and arsenic bind tightly to soil and do not deteriorate; they remain within the first 12-18 inches of topsoil for generations and contaminate waterways. Redevelopment of former rural sites without proper clearance of toxic soil has the potential to poison whole areas of people.
Crops were heavily sprayed with pesticides that were designed to attack the nervous systems of insects — unfortunately they had the same effect on humans. They were inhaled and absorbed through the skin and oral cavity, causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, brain dysfunction, and bone malformation – all of which are common symptoms of heavy metal poisoning and polio.
Heavy metals were present in everyday products in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Arsenic was used in synthetic dyes and syphilis treatments; mercury was used in teething powders, dental fillings, and medical preparations.
Lead, arsenic, and mercury are neurotoxic environmental poisons – all are fat-soluble and therefore can affect fatty areas of the body such as the brain and nerves.
Orthopaedist Jacob von Heine observed ‘infantile spinal paralysis’ in 1840 and speculated that it was a contagious disease. It was named ‘acute anterior poliomyelitis’ by Wilhelm Heinrich Erb in 1875, by which time outbreaks had started to occur.
Regional patterns of disease led physicians to believe that polio was a contagious virus, but it was an unproven assumption. Scientists had no idea what a virus was in the nineteenth century — nobody had seen one because the electron microscope, which enabled observation of viruses, was not invented until 1931.
A study of 2,000 case histories carried out by Harvard Infantile Paralysis Commission concluded that tonsillectomies (introduced in 1909 and carried out routinely as a preventative measure) provoked respiratory paralysis due to bulbar polio. This was known at the time as authorities prohibited removal of tonsils and adenoids during epidemics. Bulbar polio was the type that required use of an iron lung and had the highest death rate.
The case fatality rate in the early 1900s was very high. England and Wales made polio a notifiable disease in 1912, and it was endemic from then on. The New York epidemic of 1916 saw patients experimented on with spinal injections of disinfectant and adrenaline. Roughly half of those treated died and were recorded as polio deaths.
A new pesticide, DDT — labeled ‘the killer of killers’ — was introduced just as WW2 began. People were led to believe it was good for them and even sprayed it on their children’s lunches. It is a cumulative poison and can be absorbed through the skin and mucosa. Governments started to ban DDT in the early 1950s, but the damage was done. The UK outlawed it in 1986, and it was banned worldwide in 2001, though it continues to be used in areas with high malaria incidence.
Epidemics peaked in the 1940s and 50s and physicians began to notice a correlation between certain medical interventions and polio paralysis. Children treated for congenital syphilis with arsenic-based Salvarsan often developed paralysis in their injected limbs.
Cases of polio rose in line with the expansion of vaccination programmes for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus.
The diphtheria vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1942 and was noted for its adverse effects. The British Medical Association published news on the 10th of April 1950 that the diphtheria vaccine was responsible for childhood paralysis attributed to polio.
A doctor at Guy’s Hospital in London found that 80 children developed paralysis within a month of receiving the shots; a health ministry doctor reported that another 65 children had developed paralysis within a fortnight; the St. Pancras medical officer found 40 more cases. Some children recovered from the paralysis, but others were still paralysed 18 months after onset. Two of the cases followed injection of penicillin.
Anne McLaren, writing for Cambridge University Press in 1957, stated that, “It is now well established that intramuscular inoculation with combined diphtheria-pertussis prophylactics can affect the course of poliomyelitic infection in children. Localisation of paralysis in the limb injected with vaccines was reported by McCloskey, Martin, Geffen, Hill & Knowelden, and Benjamin in 1950.”
In 1951, Dr Ralph Scobey and Dr Mortind Biskind testified in front of the U.S Congress that the paralysis around the country known as ‘polio’ was being caused by industrial poisons, and that a virus theory was purposely fabricated by the chemical industry and the government to deflect litigation away from both parties.
The diagnostic criteria for polio were very loose prior to trials for the vaccine in 1954.Only after the vaccine was introduced was there any effort to distinguish polio from other types of paralytic disease.
The first polio vaccine, created by Jonas Salk in 1955, caused a great deal of controversy. The ‘Cutter Incident’ happened when 120,000 children were injected with a live virus instead of a weakened one: 40,000 developed polio, 200 were paralysed, and ten died. When the immunisation program was eventually rolled out to the public, a different, untested, rapidly approved formula was used.
Salk later admitted that live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis might produce the diseases they intended to prevent (Science, 4th March 1977).
In 1956, the American Medical Association ordered that doctors could no longer diagnose paralysis as polio – it had to be called ‘acute flaccid paralysis’. This reduced polio statistics dramatically and gave the appearance that the vaccine programme had succeeded, when really the definition of the disease had just changed.
Simple, timely changes to diagnostic criteria meant the number of paralytic cases dropped irrespective of the vaccine programme.
Laboratory testing for polio wasn’t introduced until 1958. Before then, all manner of other diseases could be classed as polio, including other enteroviruses, lead, arsenic, and DDT poisoning, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, post-polio syndrome, viral or aseptic meningitis, traumatic neuritis, and Reye’s syndrome. How many were misdiagnosed and put on the wrong path of treatment as a result?
It is claimed that the polio vaccine eradicated polio due to overblown, tightly controlled propaganda campaigns, but the truth is that cases plummeted because of changes in pesticide use, elimination of toxic metals in everyday products, improved diets and sanitary behaviour, and redefinition of the disease.
There is no convincing evidence of polio as a contagious viral disease. Naturally occurring polio is all but obsolete in the modern world and the only ‘polio’ we see nowadays is vaccine-induced, courtesy of immunisation programmes run by the World Health Organisation.
There has been a huge rise in vaccine-induced polio paralysis in India. In 2011 there were an extra 47,000 cases, which were directly proportionate to the amount of oral vaccines administered. In 2018 a vaccine tainted with eradicated type-2 polio was given to children in Uttar Pradesh. The country remains vulnerable to polio due to its continued use of DDT, intramuscular injection of antibiotics, and diets high in sugar and low in vitamins.
Research scientist Viera Scheibner says that modern day vaccine advocates have forgotten the ‘polio provocation’ of the past. She believes that vaccines represent a assault on the immune system, which seems to be clearly implicated in the shadowy history of polio.
Vaccines were not needed to combat polio. Dr Fred Klenner published results of a study that used intravenous vitamin C to cure polio and other viral diseases 73 years ago — six years before the vaccine was introduced. With a success rate of 100%, we have to ask why this simple, non-toxic, affordable cure was completely overlooked and ignored by the medical community. Why is it still ignored?
The answer may lie in the criminal deceptions peddled by medical-industrial-pharmaceutical cartels that control the narrative of disease in order to sustain their gravy train of ill-gotten gain. A customer cured is a customer lost and there is no profit to be made from a healthy population.
Over the past year-plus, athletes across the world have been dropping like flies as they compete in games. If they aren’t passed out cold, they are seen gripping their chests in agony, unable to breathe due to sudden cardiac events that hit in the heat of the competition.
This wave of heart issues is unprecedented, to say the least. Never before have we seen young, healthy, world-class athletes experiencing heart issues en masse like this. It has never happened, ever. Furthermore, the timing of this sweeping phenomenon could not be more relevant, coinciding perfectly with the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines.
In December nearly 300 athletes reportedly collapsed or suffered cardiac arrests after taking the COVID vaccines.
But it gets worse. Thanks to a new explosive report by OAN that pegs the number of affected athletes in the hundreds.
In all, their investigation found a jaw-dropping 769 men and women who collapsed with heart issues during competition over the past year (between March 2021 and March 2022).
Most shockingly, the average age of those who experienced full-blown cardiac arrest was just 23.
Considering the timing of this never-before-seen issue in healthy athletes, and the universal push for Covid jabs, all signs point to one culprit: the experimental vaccine.
After detailing two recent high-profile cases, in which two tennis players were forced to recuse themselves from last month’s Miami Open, OAN’s Pearson Sharp reviewed their shocking investigation and asked a few pressing questions that should be answered if you are still questioning what is driving these heart issues in young individuals:
“These are just two o more than 769 athletes who have collapsed during a game on the field over the last year. From March of 2021 to March of this year. The average age of the players suffering cardiac arrest is just 23-years-old.
How many 23-year-old athletes were collapsing and suffering heart attacks before this year? Do you know any 23-year-old people who had heart attacks before now?
And these are just the ones we know about. How many have gone unreported? Nearly 800 athletes – young, fit people in the prime of life falling down on the field. In fact, 500% more soccer players in the EU are dropping dead from heart attacks than just one year ago.”
Just in case there is any lingering inclination to call this a coincidence, Sharp sets the record straight.
“Coincidence? When the Pfizer vaccine is known to cause heart inflamation? No. In fact, many doctors treating these players list their injuries and deaths as being directly caused by the vaccine…
This is not a coincidence – healthy teenagers dying after getting the Pfizer injection. Doctors warned the FDA before they released the experimental vaccine that it would ‘almost certainly cause terrible organ damage.’”
The only question left is: when do we see some accountability?
Former CDC Director Robert Redfield has stated that Bird Flu will jump to humans and be highly fatal in the coming “Great Pandemic,” for which C19 was a mere warm-up.
Airplane leaving jet contrails with COVID-19 word inside. Symbolizing the global spread of the coronavirus through global air traffic.
A few months ago, I wrote an article exploring the connection between the symptoms of disease known as “Covid-19” and air pollution. While air pollution is not the only factor currently causing disease, I laid out why I believe that this is the most likely explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory symptoms of disease. I provided a general overview on the problem of air pollution and how it can impact our health and environment. Within the article, I touched upon the issue of persistent contrails, a.k.a. chemtrails, and provided information directly from Government sources admitting the impact that these trails have on our health and environment. Even though this information is readily available to anyone willing to look, there are many out there who still seem to believe that these trails are harmless. They claim that I am promoting nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory.
The fact of the matter is that these trails are admitted to be harmful to our health and environment by both sides of the “chemtrail” debate. There is no conspiracy theory here. This is a FACT. We can speculate as to who is doing this and why but that is ultimately irrelevant. While pollution from automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, etc. all contribute to this air pollution health crisis, the harmful effects from the aviation industry are regularly glossed over and/or omitted when this issue is discussed. However, if you dig deep enough and actually search for the information, what can be found to be admitted by official Government sources regarding the health consequences from these trails is very telling and disturbing.
To start with, I want to provide a quick breakdown of the negative health impact of just one component that is admitted to be found within these persistent trails left in the wake of aircrafts. This is known as particulate matter, the most dangerous of which is PM2.5. From the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you will see that PM2.5 is a known toxin potentially made up of hundreds of different chemicals that is so small that it can collect deep within the lungs and even enter the bloodstream. It has been associated with cardiovascular and respiratory disease, irritation of the eyes, throat, and lungs, and premature death:
Particulate Matter (PM) Basics
What is PM, and how does it get into the air?
“PM stands for particulate matter (also called particle pollution): the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye. Others are so small they can only be detected using an electron microscope.
Particle pollution includes:
PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller; and
PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller.
How small is 2.5 micrometers? Think about a single hair from your head. The average human hair is about 70 micrometers in diameter – making it 30 times larger than the largest fine particle.
Sources of PM
These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals.
Some are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires.
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles.
What are the Harmful Effects of PM?
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.
Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas.”
Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM)
Health Effects
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream.
Exposure to such particles can affectboth your lungs and your heart. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
premature death in people with heart or lung disease
nonfatal heart attacks
irregular heartbeat
aggravated asthma
decreased lung function
increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing.
People with heart or lung diseases,children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure.
PM2.5 and other particulate matter is only part of the dangerous substances found in these persistent contrails. Other admitted substances include carbon dioxide (CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), black carbon soot, and other trace metals. It is simply beyond logic and reasoning to believe that the inhalation of these substances on a daily basis is not harmful to one’s health.
Recently, some members of Congress were interested in addressing the health and environmental problems associated with aviation. On February 8th, 2022, the Congressional Research Service released a report describing the problem and how to address it. A few highlights showcase that aviation pollution is the fastest-growing pollutant over the past decade and that there are numerous toxic substances found within these trails: Aviation, Air Pollution, and Climate Change
Emissions from Aircraft
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that transportation—including passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, trains, ships, and aircraft—accounted for 35% of carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal GHG) emissions in 2018. While CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light trucks exceed those from aircraft in the United States, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth. All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018. Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions. These estimates include emissions from U.S. domestic flights and emissions from international flights departing the United States, referred to as “international bunkering.”
In the United States, aggregate CO2 emissions from aircraft have fluctuated due to changes in technology, the economy, travel frequency, and military activity, among other reasons. However, since the global financial crisis in 2009,aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018. This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade. This trend is likely to be affected, at least temporarily, by reduced air travel in 2020 and 2021 due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions. Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation. These factors include the contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production; the formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds; the emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion; and the high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions. In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone.
Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur, unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), particulates, and other trace compounds. A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants.”
In case you wanted a visual representation of how this pollution is said to form and impact our health.
As can be seen, the pollution coming from the aviation industry is a fast-growing problem that is impacting our health and environment in numerous ways. While this has been known for decades and solutions have been presented to try and reverse the impact, nothing is ever implemented to fix the problem. Solutions are only useful if they are enacted upon. While Congress gathers reports, there is little action taken in regards to those reports. It is one thing to acknowledge the negative health and environmental impact yet it is another thing entirely to actually shake up the industry by doing something about it. This seems not to be a major concern as these trails have become worse over time, increasingly contributing to erratic weather, disease, and premature death.
For further evidence of the impact that these trails have on our health and environment, we can turn once again to the EPA to provide more detail. In a document from January 11th, 2021, the EPA enacted standards that are supposed to combat greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation industry. In this document are findings from reports they had compiled in 2016 which call out the dangers these trails have on the public health and welfare:
Control of Air Pollution From Airplanes and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission Standards and Test Procedures
“In August 2016, the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines (the 2016 Findings).[7]First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Additional details of the 2016 Findings are described in Section III. As a result of the 2016 Findings, CAA sections 231(a)(2)(A) and (3) obligate the EPA to propose and adopt, respectively, GHG standards for these covered aircraft engines.”
III. Summary of the 2016 Findings
“On August 15, 2016,[46] the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines. First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2 O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding [47] under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change. Second, the EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft [48] cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).”
In February of 2022, the EPA proposed standards that would reflect the importance of the control of PM emissions in aviation. They were looking to secure the highest practicable degree of uniformity in aviation regulations and standards. Within this proposal, the EPA provided plenty of insight into the potential health impacts of PM2.5 on human health such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, neurological disorders, asthma, cancer, ferility/reproductive problems, and premature death. They also outlined the impact the chemicals in the trails have on the environment such as affecting the metabolic processes of plant foliage, altering the soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, disrupting plant and animal growth and reproduction, and the corrosion of metals and soil. They even provided more detail on the make-up of the composition of the dangerous toxins inside these trails with the addition of carcinogens such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals such as chromium, manganese, and nickel. Judging by this information alone, it should be rather clear that these trails are negatively impacting our health and environment in numerous ways:
Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft Engines: Emission Standards and Test Procedures
III. Particulate Matter Impacts on Air Quality and Health
A. Background on Particulate Matter
“Particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from those smaller than 1 nanometer (10−9 meter) to over 100 micrometers (μm, or 10−6 meter) in diameter (for reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 μm in diameter and a grain of salt is about 100 μm). Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes. Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine particles (UFPs, generally considered as particulates with a diameter less than or equal to 0.1 μm (typically based on physical size, thermal diffusivity or electrical mobility)), “fine” particles (PM2.5; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and “thoracic” particles (PM10; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm). Particles that fall within the size range between PM2.5 and PM10, are referred to as “thoracic coarse particles” (PM10-2.5, particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm and greater than 2.5 μm).
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions between PM precursors; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” particles. Particle concentration and composition varies by time of year and location, and, in addition to differences in source emissions, is affected by several weather-related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. Ambient levels of PM are also impacted by particles’ ability to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration, meteorology, and especially temperature.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions ( e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region, meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds. These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM. PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM.[35] Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM.
B. Health Effects of Particulate Matter
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA), which was finalized in December 2019.[36]The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.).[37] The PM ISA additionally notes that stratified analyses ( i.e., analyses that directly compare PM-related health effects across groups) provide strong evidence for racial and ethnic differences in PM2.5 exposures and in PM2.5 -related health risk. As described in Section III.D, concentrations of PM increase with proximity to an airport. Further, studies described in Section III.G report that many communities in close proximity to airports are disproportionately represented by people of color and low-income populations.
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects.[38]Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship.”
More detailed information on the health effects of PM can be found in a memorandum to the docket.[39]
C. Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter
Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include visibility degradation, plant and ecosystem effects, deposition effects, and materials damage and soiling. These effects are briefly summarized here and discussed in more detail in the memo to the docket cited above.
PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility.[40]In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized visibility’s value to society by establishing a national goal to protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment caused by manmade pollution.[41] In 1999, EPA finalized the regional haze program (64 FR 35714) to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal areas. There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas (62 FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997). These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. EPA has also concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility in other areas that are not targeted by the Regional Haze Rule, such as urban areas, depending on PM2.5 concentrations and other factors such as dry chemical composition and relative humidity ( i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the particles). EPA established the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997 and has retained the standard in subsequent reviews.[42] This standard is expected to provide protection against visibility effects through attainment of the existing secondary standards for PM2.5 . EPA is reconsidering the 2020 decision, as announced on June 10, 2021.[43]
1. Deposition of Metallic and Organic Constituents of PM
Several significant ecological effects are associated with deposition of chemical constituents of ambient PM such as metals and organics.[44]Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emit trace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear. Ecological effects of PM include direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage; contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction; and contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification.
2. Materials Damage and Soiling
Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble.[45]
D. Near-Source Impacts on Air Quality and Public Health
Airport activity can adversely impact air quality in the vicinity of airports. Furthermore, these adverse impacts may disproportionately impact sensitive subpopulations. A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales.[46] The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5 . The study concludes that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport. Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft.[47] While there are considerable uncertainties associated with such estimates, these results suggest that in addition to the contributions of PM2.5 emissions to regional air quality, impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern.
A significant body of research has addressed pollutant levels and potential health effects in the vicinity of airports. Much of this research was synthesized in a 2015 report published by the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), conducted by the Transportation Research Board.[48]The report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.” [49]
Furthermore, the report states (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m). Finally, the report concludes that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions. Moreover, one recently published study concluded that emissions from aircraft play an etiologic role in pre-term births, independent of noise and traffic-related air pollution exposures.[50]
Since the publication of the 2015 ACRP literature review, a number of studies conducted in the U. S. have been published which concluded that ultrafine particle number concentrations were elevated downwind of commercial airports, and that proximity to an airport also increased particle number concentrations within residences.Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area. They found elevated outdoor PNC within several kilometers of the airport. They also found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC.[51] In another study in the vicinity of Logan airport, Hudda et al. analyzed PNC impacts of aviation activities.[52] They found that, at sites 4.0 and 7.3 km from the airport, average PNCs were 2 and 1.33-fold higher, respectively, when winds were from the direction of the airport compared to other directions, indicating that aviation impacts on PNC extend many kilometers downwind of Logan airport. Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles.[53] Similar findings have been published from European studies.[54 55 56 57 58 59 ] Results of a monitoring study of communities near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport also found higher levels of ultrafine PM near the airport, and an impacted area larger than at near-roadway sites.[60] The PM associated with aircraft landing activity was also smaller in size, with lower black carbon concentrations than near-roadway samples. As discussed above, PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects. Further, the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts.[61 62] For example, He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells.
Because of these potential impacts, a systematic literature review was recently conducted to identify peer-reviewed literature on air quality near commercial airports and assess the quality of the studies.[63] The systematic review identified seventy studies for evaluation. These studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports. Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well. Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia. More research is needed linking particle size distributions to specific airport activities, and proximity to airports, characterizing relationships between different pollutants, evaluating long-term impacts, and improving our understanding of health effects.
A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports was also recently published.[64] This study concluded that literature on health effects was sparse, but jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions.A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality.[65]”
F. Other Pollutants Emitted by Aircraft
“In addition to particulate matter, a number of other criteria pollutants are emitted by the aircraft which are the subject of this proposed rule. These pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include nitrogen oxides (NOX), including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. These compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals. Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions.[70]
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include chromium, manganese, and nickel. Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk.[71] In addition, as mentioned previously, deposition of metallic compounds can have ecological effects. Impacts of POM and metals are further discussed in the memorandum to the docket referenced above.”
PM stands for particulate matter – the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air
Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye while others are too small to be seen
PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller
PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller
These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems
Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream
Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems
Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart
Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
Premature death in people with heart or lung disease
Nonfatal heart attacks
Irregular heartbeat
Aggravated asthma
Decreased lung function
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing
People with heart or lung diseases,children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure
According to a Congressional Research Service report from February 8th, 2022, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth than other sources
All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018
Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions
Since the global financial crisis in 2009, aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018
This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade
The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions
Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation which include:
The contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production
The formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds
The emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion
The high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions
In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone
Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including:
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Oxides of sulfur
Unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])
Particulates
Other trace compounds
A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants
According to a 2021 report by the EPA, they found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change
The EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
Another report by the EPA from February 2022 states that particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere
PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds
These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers
Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM
PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM
Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM
In other words, there are no standards proposed by the EPA for the transformation these chemicals go through after leaving the enginewhen they become lingering trails
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM isassociated with a broad range of health effects
The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.)
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects
Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer
In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship”
Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include:
Visibility degradation
Plant and ecosystem effects
Deposition effects
Materials damage and soiling
PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility
Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emittrace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear
Ecological effects of PM include:
Direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage
Contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction
Contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification
Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects)
Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble
A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales
The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5
The study concluded that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport
Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft
Impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern
A 2015 report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.”
Furthermore, the report stated (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m)
Finally, the report concluded that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions
Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area and found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC
Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles
PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects and the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts
He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells
A systematic review of 70 studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports
Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well
Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia
A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports found that jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions
A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality
Besides PM2.5, other harmful pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include:
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects
These compounds include, but are not limited to:
Benzene,
1,3-butadiene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
Certain metals
Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs)
Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include:
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk
When dealing with a potential health threat, we tend to jump to the conclusion that we are facing a new “virus” as this well-orchestrated lie has been drilled into our collective consciousness since birth. It is second nature to blame the new invisible boogeyman while overlooking the old visible threats that have been plaguing us for years with no end in sight. It seems too easy to admit to ourselves that any perceived increase in respiratory disease could be attributable to the continued increase in air pollution.
Yet from the start, “Covid-19” has been linked to air pollution. The areas hit the hardest were those with the highest levels of these harmful toxins in the air. As travel died down during the lockdowns, cases fell along with subsiding smog. As travel and pollution rose up again, so too did the “Covid” cases. Even small increases in air pollution has been shown to have an impact on “Covid” case numbers and deaths.
We know for a fact that air pollution is harmful to our health and environment. We know that every single symptom of disease associated with “Covid-19” can be linked to the PM2.5 particles which make up the majority of the dirty air we breathe. We know for a fact that automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. all contribute to the harmful levels of toxins in the air. However, the one thing we have been told not to question as a contributor to our current problems are the lingering trails in the sky which form artificial clouds blocking out the beneficial rays of the sun. We are told that these are just regular old contrails from commercial airliners made up of ice crystals which eventually dissipate into a completely safe and harmless nothingness. Anyone questioning the trails is immediately labelled a conspiracy theorist.
It should be clear now, whether you call them chemtrails or not, that these persistent streaks in the sky are full of dangerous substances that attack the cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological systems. Thanks to government sources such as the EPA and the Congressional Research Service, we know that these trails are the fastest growing pollutant in the air and that they are contributing to even greater levels of smog and haze. The trails and the artificial cirrus clouds they form are a near constant sight in the sky these days and the problem is only growing worse with time. The damaging effects that these lines in the sky have on our health and environment is not even debatable. It is agreed upon by both sides of the debate. That these “persistent contrails” are harmful to our health and environment is a FACT. That the chemicals and toxins found within the vapors cause the exact same symptoms of disease as “Covid-19” is not a coincidence.
Thus we are left with two choices. We can either believe the official narrative that a new “virus” of unknown origin magically leapt from animal to man or somehow escaped from a lab and infected millions of people with a disease that causes the exact same symptoms associated with allergies, the common cold, the flu, and pneumonia. And with it’s rise, it has eliminated the majority of the cases of those previous ailments and can also constantly mutate (over 10 million versions now according to GISAID.org) in order to slip by every possible measure to contain it including masks, social distancing, lockdowns, quarantines, vaccines, etc.
Or we can believe that the ever-increasing and constant daily exposure to air pollution has taken a toll on the populace damaging the health and environment of everyone living within these dangerous levels of toxic fumes. While this is not the only explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory and other diseases, it is the most logical one over an invisible “virus.” According to Occam’s Razor, the simplest of competing theories should be preferred over those that are more complex and that explanations of unknown phenomena should be sought first in terms of known quantities. We know air pollution is harmful. We know that these trails are increasing at a faster rate than any other pollutant. We know that the chemicals residing within them are associated with the exact same symptoms of disease that are ascribed to “Covid.” Unlike a “virus,” we can see this boogeyman with our own two eyes.
All we have to do is look up.
From their own sources, the trails are a threat to our health and our environment. Contrary to what they want you to believe about “persistent contrails,” a.k.a. chemtrails, this is NOT a conspiracy.
You can see more of the slides from Government sources that were presented within this article here.
In a World First on Maria Zeee Uncensored, Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts exposes the Nanotech found in the COVID-19 Vaccines, declaring this is genocide.
We discuss the incoming Digital Identity and the government’s plan to enslave humanity through their plans for a New World Order.
Dr. Naomi Wolf discusses the war on children and on Western values. Forcing children to wear masks is abusive because new studies show that this prevents them from developing normal facial recognition and the practice has a now-measurable effect on their IQ levels.
With all the new information surfacing from the WarRoom/DailyClout volunteers regarding the formerly secret Pfizer documents, and with attorney Stevan Looney’s new essay on the redacted documents in the secret Pfizer tranche now published on DailyClout.io, it is becoming clear that informed consent before receiving the vaccine was never even possible.
Bombshell: in order to process just the paperwork from the “large number of adverse events” — Pfizer’s own words — Pfizer had to hire 2,400 new, full-time employees and the company proudly informed the FDA of these thousands of new hires to grapple with the flood of adverse events they saw as early as February 28, 2021. Yet they did not disclose these adverse events to the public and neither did the FDA.
Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine, with plans to hire 1,800 more by June 2021, newly released documents reveal.
Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of its COVID-19 vaccine, newly released documents reveal.
According to the documents, Pfizer said, “More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”
The information was contained in a 10,000-page document cache released April 1 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and made public as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The latest revelations appeared in a document, “Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports” of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, highlighting such adverse events identified through Feb. 28, 2021.
The document was previously released in November 2021, but was partially redacted. The redactions included the number of employees Pfizer hired and/or was planning to hire.
According to the unredacted document released April 1:
“Pfizer has also taken a multiple actions [sic] to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.
“To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional full-time employees (FTEs).
“More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”
The unredacted version also revealed the number of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine doses shipped worldwide between December 2020 and February 2021:
“It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer EUA vaccine] were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.”
The number of shipped doses previously was redacted.
“The rollout of the Pfizer vaccine has led to an unprecedented number of adverse events reported — 158,000 adverse events in the first two-plus months of the rollout means that the rate of reported AE [adverse events] was approximately 1:1000, with many of the AEs graded as serious. This is based on a denominator of 125,000,000 vaccines distributed.
“It is no wonder that an army of 1,800 individuals was needed to process all of the information.”
Hooker noted the total number (1,205,755) of COVID vaccine adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 25, 2022, now eclipses the total number (930,952) of adverse events reported in the 32-year history of the database.
Dr. Madhava Setty, a board-certified anesthesiologist and senior science editor for The Defender, previously reported on the same Pfizer document, before the unredacted version was released.
“In that piece, I alluded to Pfizer’s admission that they needed more staff to process all of the adverse events being reported to them,” Setty said.
“It seems this document has now been updated. 600 FTEs [full-time employees]! … I wonder how many extra people the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection] has hired? Given how they are operating, I would say zero.”
Pfizer downplayed adverse reactions in request for full FDA license
The April 1 document release also included “request for priority review” — the documentation Pfizer in May 2021 submitted to the FDA for full licensure of its Comirnaty COVID vaccine.
In this document, Pfizer described its vaccine as fulfilling an “unmet medical need,” claiming:
“Mass immunization with a safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19 can dramatically alter the trajectory of the pandemic.
“According to policy briefing by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation published on 31 March 2021, COVID-19 remains a leading cause of death in the US with up to 100,000 additional deaths projected in the US between March and July 2021, many of which can likely be prevented with COVID-19 vaccination.”
Pfizer expressed “concerns” about lifting COVID-related measures, such as lockdowns, on the basis that the lifting of such restrictions would “counteract the impacts of this vaccination effort.”
“Vaccination against COVID-19 began with EUA/conditional approvals in December 2020, in a phased rollout defined by national/regional guidance.
“However, there continue to be concerning trends that may counteract the impacts of this vaccination effort, including:
“[L]imitations in access to obtaining a vaccine due to infrastructure challenges (ie, clinic and appointment capacity and systems)
“[I]ncreasing viral transmission fueled by relaxed compliance with mitigations as the pandemic surpasses the 1-year mark (ie, masks, physical distancing, limiting travel)
“[I]ncreasing circulation of emerging variants of concern (which are currently driving continued spread of viral infection in Europe despite extensive mitigation mandates).”
Pfizer justified its request for full licensure of its COVID vaccine on the following basis:
“A vaccine program must be implemented expediently and rapidly expanded to have a significant impact on the pandemic course.
“Licensure of BNT162b2 is likely to enhance vaccine uptake by facilitating supply of vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech directly to pharmacies and healthcare providers/facilities.
“The greatest impact of BNT162b2 licensure may be direct supply to healthcare providers who serve vulnerable populations such as elderly patients and those who live in rural and underserved communities (ie, individuals who might be unable to navigate the challenges of securing vaccine access using the systems in place for EUA).
“Expansion of vaccine via licensure would ultimately improve the prospect of achieving population herd immunity to bring the pandemic under control.”
The same document glossed over the adverse effects for which the company previously admitted it hired a significant number of new employees to process, claiming:
“Based on Phase 1 data from the FIH Study BNT162-01, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 [various vaccines tested during the trial period] were safe and well-tolerated in healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age, with no unanticipated safety findings.
“Phase 2/3 safety data were generally concordant with safety data in Phase 1 of the study, both overall and with regard to younger and older participants.”
This is despite hard figures regarding adverse reactions provided later in the document:
“Through 28 February 2021 (data lock point aligned with Pharmacovigilance Plan), there were a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events. Cases were received from 63 countries.
“Consistent with what was seen in Phase 2/3 of Study C4591001, most reported AEs were in System Organ Classes (SOCs) with reactogenicity events: general disorders and administration site conditions (51,335), nervous system disorders (25,957), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), and gastrointestinal disorders (14,096).
“Post-authorization data have also informed the addition of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the experience of reactogenicity to the product labeling.”
Release of Pfizer vaccine documents still in progress
Many of the documents released as part of the April 1 tranche appear to include more mundane information and data related to the Pfizer COVID vaccine trials.
These documents include:
Peer-reviewed scientific articles funded by Pfizer-BioNTech, titled “Phase 1/2 Study of COVID-19 RNA Vaccine” (August 2020) and “Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RANA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2020.These studies supported “further evaluation of this mRNA vaccine candidate” despite the apparent appearance of serious adverse effects in one of the 12 participants receiving 30 μg and 100 μg doses of the BNT162b1 candidate vaccine during the trial phase. This, however, does not appear to have been the final vaccine formulation that ultimately received an EUA.
A questionnaire that vaccine trial participants were required to complete, along with a study book displaying the information to be collected from those participating.
Documentsoutlining the randomization scheme used for identifying vaccine trial participants and those who received doses of the vaccine or a placebo.
Documentslisting anonymized demographic characteristics of vaccine trial participants.
An anonymized listing of important protocol deviations.
Consent forms that vaccine trial participants were asked to complete, as well as other related documents submitted by Pfizer for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, and information regarding institutions participating in the IRB process.
“‘Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“To obtain embryo cells [for research on vaccines and other pharma products], embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms.”
“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed.”
“In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive, in order to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”
“Given these premises, we face the dilemma of whether the deliberate systematic destruction of a human creature to obtain cell material can be justified, when it is recognized that this is of great interest to fundamental research and for the diagnosis of some human diseases. Are research and diagnosis of such great value that they justify the destruction of human beings?”
“The Geneva Declaration affirms that the doctor has the duty to take the greatest care to safeguard the life of a human being from its conception and will not, even under threat, use his knowledge to infringe humanitarian laws.” (1986-04-26; Herranz, Gonzalo; Il Sabato, no.15…Professor Herranz was, at the time, president of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish Doctors and vice-president of the Permanent Committee of Medical Ethics of the European Community.)”
What exactly happened in 1972 or 1973, in the Netherlands, where an infant girl was aborted, and her kidneys used to make a cell line that would be used, going forward, in the testing of vaccines?
That cell line is called HEK 293, and it has been used to test COVID vaccines.
I have already presented evidence for concluding the abortion involved removing the living infant from her mother’s womb, and taking her kidneys, which of course killed her.
This evidence rests on the realization that, in order to extract viable and useful kidney tissue, the baby had to have a functioning blood supply, which meant she was alive.
But the evidence ALSO comes from knowing many other abortions have been carried out, in order to harvest tissue for medical research, by murdering living babies.
I have found a very informative article (2/9/2021) at the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK, by Christian Hacking, titled, “What the HEK?!” by Christian Hacking. Quoting from the article:
“HEK 293 is a human cell line created using a kidney from a dissected unborn baby in the Netherlands between 1972 and 1973. It is the second most common cell line and is used extensively in ‘pharmaceutical and biomedical research’. It is also used in vaccine creation and cancer research.”
“It was used, along with other human cell lines, to develop a genetically engineered spike protein (that the mRNA vaccine codes for) in the original development stage of the vaccine. The ‘new technology’ Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna Vaccine were tested on HEK 293 before they began human trials. This testing is ongoing for all new batches. Finally the ‘old technology’ Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine grew a weakened viral strain in HEK 293 cell culture…”
“The kidney in question was dissected from a healthy Dutch baby girl of unknown origin by the team at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 1972. Despite the inclusion of the term ‘embryonic’ in the title, the baby in question was probably 12-13 weeks old when she was killed so as to secure functioning kidney cells. The man in charge of the research was named Alex Jan Van der Eb; he is still alive and still based in Holland.”
“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”
“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”
Author Hacking continues: “…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”
“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”
[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]
[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]
Hacking:
“In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”
“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:
“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“In his dense book ‘The Foetus As Transplant Donor the Scientific, Social, and Ethical Perspectives’, immunologist Dr Peter McCullagh relays detailed descriptions of the methods used on dozens of ‘fetal tissue donors’ from the 1970’s onward, including the deaths of babies between 7 and 26 weeks gestation by decapitations, exposure, dissection and drug testing. Gynaecologist and ex-abortionist Dr Bernard Nathanson, relaying his own understanding of abortion, and citing McCullagh’s book claims the Swedish experiments took place thus:
“’…in Sweden they have been puncturing the sac of a pregnant woman at let us say 14 to 16 weeks, and then they put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby’s head, and then put a suction machine into the brain and suck out the brain cells….. Healthy human fetuses from 7 to 21 weeks from legal abortions were used. This is in Sweden. The conception age was estimated from crown rump length and so on. Fetal liver and kidney were rapidly removed and weighed. Now at 21 weeks, what they were doing, or 18 weeks, or 16 weeks, was what is called prostaglandin abortions. They would inject a substance into the womb. The woman would then go into mini-labor and pass this baby. 50% of the time, the baby would be born alive, but that didn’t stop them. They would just simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.’”
“A research paper from the University of Toronto from June 1952 commenting on the method of their experiments suggests that these techniques were universal with researchers working in close proximity to the abortions.”
“’No macerated [softened after death] specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
“According to Gonzalo Herranz, former head of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish doctors, the best way to prevent ‘contamination by microorganisms’ is to deliver the child by caesarean section or the removal of the uterus.”
“A 1982 review of a history of tissue donation affirms this, and much of the above evidence:”
“’Fetal tissue for transplantation must be “harvested” within a few minutes of delivery. Ideally this is by hysterectomy, with the fetus delivered in utero. Drugs which reduce fetal physiological activity need to be avoided. The fetus is therefore in as alive and aware a state as possible when being opened’.”
From Hacking’s article, it’s quite clear how the standard procedure of infant-murder is carried out.
It’s entirely reasonable to assume fetal cell line HEK 293—used for COVID vaccine testing—was originally produced, in 1972, by the murder of an infant. Refusal to take a COVID vaccine on the basis of conscience and religion is more than justified.
Given the weight of the circumstantial case, I would say that for all people of faith, refusal is essential.
Lunatic medical murderers and their allies will say anything to avoid blame and the application of true justice to themselves. They will invent “science” at the drop of a hat and couch it in humanitarian terms. They will claim the ends justify the means. They will commit gross forgery to pretend those ends are vital.
But we don’t have to stand by and passively believe them.
Billions of people of faith can stand against them.
If you are looking for one of the most masterful takedowns of virology to date, this presentation by Alec Zeck, Dr. Jordan Grant, Mike Donio,Jacob Diaz, and John Blaid is one of the best out there. When I first watched it a month ago, I was blown away and I had intended to share it here but, as often happens, I got sidetracked and sadly forgot to upload it. I hope you can take away a great deal of value from this presentation as the guys delve into the numerous fallacies and assumptions related to this fraudulent field.
In this presentation, you will find:
A break down of the ridiculous cell culture experiments
The lack of adhering to the scientific method
The foundational issues with virology from the very beginning
The inherent problems with and the limitations of electron microscopy imaging
The lack of any purified and isolated physical “viral” particles found directly in human samples
The issues related to the creation of the theoretical genome
The fabrication and lack of validation of the PCR test for “SARS-COV-2”
A thorough explanation of the Stefan Lanka control experiments
The myths of contagion and other possible explanations for dis-ease
The FOI requests and the burden of proof
As I said, a masterful takedown of the pseudoscience called virology!
Virology’s Unproven Assumptions
In this episode, Alec Zeck has a discussion with Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, Dr. Jordan Grant MD, and John Blaid on the fallacious reasoning, unproven assumptions, and lack of proof for virus theory.
The implementation of a digital passport system is a crucial element in this plan, which would go on to enable the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that eventually will be able strip you of your assets and turn them into a credit courtesy of governments led by authoritarian technocrats. You can not use money any longer unless someone “higher up” agrees to it. Together with plans to turn dissentic voices into “domestic terrorists” that would be the end of all of the freedoms our forefathers paid with their lives to defend.
One of these systems that could be turned into a didgital concentration camp is the Digital Green Certificate introduced by the European Union in June 2021 under the pretext of “enabling freedom of travel”. It turned out to be quite the opposite.
Consequently, brave parliamentarians such as Mr Roos have started an initiative to block the EU commission’s attempt to extend the “Covid Pass”/Green Certificate until at least 2023.
While CHD is not endorsing political platforms but focuses on advocacy for Children’s Health and Fundamental Human Rights, we kindly ask you to please take 90 seconds and listen to this video which Mr Roos has put out, and also follow the link to object to these plans of the EU Commission’s website:
“The European Commission, wants to extend the covid pass until June 2023. In one and a half minutes, I will explain to you why you should care, and what you can do to stop this.
The covid pass was introduced by the European Union in June 2021. They claimed it would make travel within the European Union easier. But that never worked. Countries still kept introducing their own restrictions. Within just a few months, member states transformed the covid pass into something much bigger. All of a sudden, you needed a QR code to enter a restaurant or even to go to work. But it was never introduced for that.
Now, Omicron is the dominant strain of the virus. To most people, it’s not dangerous anymore. The vaccine doesn’t stop the spread. Science shows that the QR system does not come with any health benefit anymore, while undermining fundamental rights.
This is the moment to abolish the covid pass once and for all.
But the European Commission wants to extend it until at least June 2023, an extremely bad idea.
Together with several colleagues in the Parliament, I will do everything I can to stop this. But we have to do it together.
We need your help, please follow this link to the European Commission website and tell them that you oppose this extension. Please do it as soon as possible, because conditional freedom is NO freedom!”
All scientific research is built on particular dogmas including, or perhaps especially, biomedicine. It’s easier for some “scientists” to perpetuate falsehoods than it is to admit they were wrong, abandon long standing ideas, and start again from scratch. Many scientists would rather pursue trendy research areas in order to win accolades and secure grant money than question long-held beliefs and dogmas.
This is exactly what has happened with modern medicine because too much money and too many reputations are at stake. If you’re not allowed to question it, then it’s not real science.
Erroneous theories in medicine have wasted billions and caused untold harm. Imagine if they had to admit that so many years of research and countless academic careers have been wasted pursuing ideas that have no basis in reality.
Thanks to the covid pseudo pandemic, the corrupt state of the medical establishment has never been more obvious to so many people.
See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
It might be difficult for some to believe that the castle of medicine is built on foundations of sand. However, Stanford scientist John P. A. Ioannidis published a study in 2005 proving that most published research findings are false.
Marcia Angell the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine has extensively investigated the corruption of medicine by drug companies.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
There are countless victims of iatrogenic disease in countless on-line support groups who once trusted their doctors to have their best interests at heart and to abide by the oath to “first do no harm”.
128,000 Americans die each year from correctly prescribed medications, making prescription drugs one of the leading causes of death.
Clearly, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Dr. Harold Hillman Goes Renegade
In his final paper, the notorious British biologist Harold Hillman claimed that “cell biology is in dire straits”. That paper was published in 2011 and summarises his life’s work which began in the 1970s. He warned biologists and cell physiologists that something is seriously wrong with their ideas about the human body.
In the 1970s this cytologist and neurobiologist began questioning mainstream cell biology and presented evidence that the accepted model of the cell was completely wrong. He suggested that the dire straits of cell biology was the reason medical research has failed to determine the cause and provide the cure for most diseases.
“During a research career lasting more than 50 years, I have concluded that the following procedures are unsuitable for studying the biology of living cells in intact animals and plants: subcellular fractionation; histology; histochemistry; electron microscopy; binding studies; use of ligands; immunocytochemistry; tissue slices; disruptive techniques; dehydration; deep freezing; freeze-drying; boiling; use of extracellular markers; receptor studies; patch clamp measurements; inadequate calibrations. The main objections to these procedures are: (i) they change the properties of the tissues being studied grossly and significantly; (ii) they ignore the second law of thermodynamics;(iii) they produce artefacts, many of which are two-dimensional; (iv) adequate control procedures have never been published for them.”
~ Dr. Harold Hillman
He challenged the fundamental principles of biology. He was a renegade who put the quest for truth above everything else.
Unsurprisingly his views were unpopular with many in the mainstream and this took a toll on his career and reputation. He had difficulty publishing his work. Mainstream scientific journals rejected his papers without reason and refused to review his books.
“The reason I’m so determined is because they [the mainstream] won’t engage. And if they won’t engage, then to my mind it proves that I’m likely to be right.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Many scientists agreed with Hillmans’ compelling ideas in private but wouldn’t support him publicly for fear of losing their funding or tarnishing their reputation. Many leading biologists would refuse to meet with him to discuss his research. His goal was to start a discussion and promote a productive debate to improve and further scientific knowledge. Instead of being given a platform to share his work, he was stifled and ridiculed. Sound familiar?
Real scientists value truth above reputation and financial gain. Real scientists are willing to risk everything to expose falsities and incorrect theories. Scientists who blatantly ignore unpopular views or refuse to debate are not true scientists.
“I should like to draw attention to the fact that I regard my views as unpopular, rather than heretical, as I do not believe that scientists should talk in terms of dogma and heresy. In the best of possible worlds, good scientists who hear challenges to their beliefs, assumptions, hypotheses, procedures or conclusions, should examine such criticism with due attention. They should respond by entering into civilised dialogue with their critics. They should be prepared to admit mistakes, if necessary, and change their views. Such reactions have not occurred.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman claimed that the routine procedures used to study the characteristics and composition of cells are completely unfit for purpose. He was adamant that these procedures would change the properties of cells more than any differences being examined so any conclusions made on the basis of these procedures were invalid.
He claimed that electron microscopy is a “waste of time and money” which goes against the vast majority of the biomedical establishment who regard the invention of the electron microscope as a pivotal point in biomedical research. Only dead tissue can be examined under an electron microscope and not living cells. Are findings based on electron microscopy relevant to living organisms?
Hillman’s work includes compelling evidence to suggest that many of the subcellular organelles that some scientists have dedicated their lives to studying are just artifacts of preparation for histology and electron microscopy. This includes both the Golgi body and the Endoplasmic Reticulum.
He also claimed that cellular receptors and transmembrane protein channels do not exist in the mainstream accepted sense. One of the reasons for this is that these cell receptors cannot be seen under an electron microscope, despite their size being within the range of visibility.
He courageously stood up for what he believed to be the truth. Despite his career and reputation taking an enormous hit, he continued to publish his ideas right up until his death.
“If I am wrong, only my reputation has been damaged. If I am right, those colleagues proved wrong may well have been wasting their time and careers and using public or charitable resources naively. They might have used their time and resources to carry out more productive research.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
When considering the current state of medicine, it seems that “more productive research” is exactly what is needed. Research that doesn’t follow dogma and isn’t funded by the very pharma industry that has a vested interest in perpetuating erroneous ideas such as the “one germ, one disease” fallacy.
“It is absolutely remarkable how unsuccessful this sort of research has been. If one knew the basic mechanisms, whose disarray induced disease, one could then design logical interventions to prevent them developing.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
We’re led to believe that modern medicine is highly advanced but the cause of most diseases apparently remains “unknown”. Most Doctors have a mechanistic, reductionist view of disease often believing disease arises due to “genetics” or that the body is just prone to making mistakes.
“It is widely believed that medical research since the Second World War has been very successful…It is absolutely remarkable how unsuccessful this sort of research has been. If one knew the basic mechanisms, whose disarray induced disease, one could then design logical interventions to prevent them developing… it is true that the cost of failure so far has been high. The most paradoxical aspect of scientific research is that it is widely believed to be objective…”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman also criticised the lack of sufficient control experiments performed in biomedical research. Proper control experiments are the cornerstone of good science ensuring that variables, other than the one being tested, do not influence the results of the experiment.
“Control experiments for the effects of reagents and manoeuvres used on the results of experiments have been grossly inadequate.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman also questioned the use of tissue cultures for histological analysis with compelling logic. Cells in culture have significantly different morphology, biochemistry, and environment than the cells from which they came.
“Tissue cultures are similar to the tissue from which they come in some ways and very different in other ways. It is clear that although there are a few properties in common, there are substantial differences. This is one of the most important questions, in respect of the usefulness of tissue cultures as sources of information about cells in intact animals.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Virology: Voodoo Scientism
Hillman’s work challenges virology as much as it does cell biology and neurobiology. The world is slowly waking up to the pseudoscientific nature of virology because of the pseudo pandemic inflicted on all of us.
“Viruses” can only be seen under an electron microscope using procedures involving heavy metals, dehydration, low pressure, electron bombardment and X-ray irradiation. Are viruses real naturally occurring structures or are they artifacts of these harsh conditions?
The effects of “viruses” are studied on cell cultures and most cell cultures are grown from embryonic tissue, cancerous tissue, stem cells, or monkey cells whose properties are completely different from that of adult human tissue. Is any of this relevant to understanding virus infectivity in humans?
Coronaviruses are supposedly assembled at the endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi interface but if Hillman is right and the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi body are artefacts of histological preparation and electron microscopy is presumed understanding of virus assembly completely wrong?
Different cell cultures are prepared by different procedures in different chemical solutions to culture “viruses”. Could this explain why only some cells can grow “viruses” but others can’t? SARS-CoV2 cannot infect many human cell lines but can infected monkey kidney cells which is not what you would expect from a supposed human pathogen.
Viruses are supposed to bind to host cell receptors as the first step to entry but if Hillman is correct macromolecular cell receptors don’t really exist.
Adequate controls have not been performed to test the effects of lab conditions, body fluids, antibiotics, and other chemicals on cell cultures so how can virologists be sure that it is the “virus” causing any observed cytopathic effects and not the chemicals and conditions themselves?
The biomedical establishment has chosen to ignore all of these crucial questions. Sadly, Hillman’s level of critical thinking and radical questioning are rare and often completely absent in modern biomedical science.
His sharp intellect and critical thinking skills were a threat to the scientific establishment. He put his career and reputation on the line to expose the weaknesses of established biomedical knowledge.
But what if he was right? What if the castle of modern medicine really is built on foundations of sand? Will his work be forgotten, or will others be brave enough to pick up where he left off?
References
1) John P. A. Ioannidis “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med. 2005 Aug; 2(8): e124.
2) Marcia Angell M.D “The Truth About the Drug Companies-How they deceive us and what to do about it.”
3) Richard Horton “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?” Lancet Comment| Volume 385, ISSUE 9976, P1380, April 11, 2015
4) Harold Hillman “Cell Biology is Currently in Dire Straits.”
5) Harold Hillman “A Career in Neurobiology.”
6) A Biomedical Scientist “Virology’s Voodoo Scientism is Not Real Science.” The Expose.
cover image based on creative commons work of 652234 & sethink / pixabay
Senator Malcolm Roberts, Queensland, Australia: To All Who Perpetrated Covid Vaccine Injuries & Death — “We Won’t Let You Get Away With It. We Are Coming for You.”
The evidence continues to mount that these vaccines do not deserve the continuing provisional approval given to them by the TGA.
Concerns about possible adverse side effects are too big to ignore any longer, especially after my COVID Under Question inquiry which you can watch by clicking here.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I’m speaking on this parliament’s therapeutic response to COVID-19 and the horrific medical harm and loss of life in that response.
Last week, leading Australian parliamentarians came together in an event I organised called COVID Under Question to present documented evidence and victim testimony proving a catastrophic failure of Australia’s regulatory framework.
COVID vaccine injuries are hidden behind anonymous government data, while supposed COVID virus harm is splashed across prime time.
The very least we can do for the victims of COVID vaccines is to say their names—victims like Caitlin Georgia Gotze, a healthy and vibrant 23-year-old studying at Griffith University to become a vet while working as a horse strapper. Caitlin dropped dead at work of a heart attack following a second Pfizer shot. Her death was recorded as asthma, a condition Caitlin had never had.
Reginald Shearer, a formerly healthy fit and active man, quickly went downhill and passed away from effects that began after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Daniel Perkins, a 36-year-old healthy father from Albion Park, died of a heart attack in his sleep following his second Pfizer injection.
Douglas James Roberts died after taking AstraZeneca. His family are concerned that his GP didn’t warn him of the side-effects of the vaccine. In other words, no informed consent was obtained. Neurosurgeons at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital attributed his death to a stroke, despite no family history and a clean bill of health. They refused to report his death to the TGA—refused!
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, Ahpra, has been bullying medical practitioners into not reporting or even for talking about the harm they’re seeing.
The TGA erased 98 per cent of the 800 vaccine deaths—98 per cent erased!—that physicians reported. The TGA did so without autopsy or suitable consideration of all the patient medical data.
TGA, ATAGI and Ahpra are the three monkeys of the pharmaceutical industry: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Section 22D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 requires the Secretary of the Department of Health to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of the vaccines were satisfactorily established for each cohort for which the provision of approval is being granted.
Data recently revealed in court papers in the United States clearly shows that vaccine harm was apparent in the clinical trials that Pfizer, BioNTech and others conducted. This information, if ATAGI had bothered to ask for it, should have resulted in a refusal of the application for provisional use.
No data was provided to the secretary regarding individual test subjects—technically, anonymized patient clinical data. No independent analysis of the fundamental issues surrounding novel mRNA vaccines was conducted in Australia—none in Australia!
Instead, the secretary took Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna’s word for it.
I will say that again: the secretary took pharmaceutical companies’ word for the safety of their products.
These are the same pharmaceutical companies that have been fined over and over for criminal behaviour.
AstraZeneca got a US$355 million fine for fraud and, separately, a $550 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy.
Pfizer got a $430 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy, and a $2.3 billion fine—that’s billion dollars—for making unfounded claims about efficacy and for paying kickbacks.
This is who the Liberal-Nationals, Labor and Greens—our very own pharmaceutical lobby—want to pay more money to. That’s not on the basis of extensive local testing and inquiry, it’s simply on the basis of taking pharmaceutical companies safety assurances. There’s no testing. It’s an assurance made easy by indemnity against any damage that the vaccines cause. What deceit! What criminal incompetence!
The Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party have accepted $1 million each from the pharmaceutical establishment in this election cycle alone. Billions more are being set aside in this week’s budget to pay the pharmaceutical companies to keep the COVID-19 gravy train going. What great value this parliament provides for those electoral donations.
Mention should be made of the TGA’s decision to ban safe, fully approved and widely accepted alternatives to COVID-19 vaccines. This includes hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; vitamins, minerals and natural antivirals; as well as proven messaging around healthy eating and lifestyles. The decision to ban proven, safe, affordable and accessible alternative treatments that are working around the world was taken to ensure the fastest and widest-possible adoption of the vaccines.
The TGA’s own customers fund the TGA. That means pharmaceutical companies fund their own product’s approval. That fails the pub test. Where are the checks and balances? There are none.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is culpable in this scandal and cover-up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ annual budget is $400 million. The most recent mortality data they provide is from November last year, four months behind. The most recent breakdown of mortality by cause and age is from 2020.
The most recent data on live births is from 2020. Birth data used to be available six weeks after, not 15 months and counting. Are they hiding miscarriages?
At what point do we consider the actions of the TGA, ATAGI and the Australian Bureau of Statistics as interfering with the operation of the Senate? Peer-reviewed and soon-to-be-published data that must require the secretary to cancel the provisional approval of the vaccines has been released from outside of the government.
Let me review those quickly so the Senate fully understands the extent to which we have been misled.
Firstly, freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the reproductive toxicology of the COVID vaccines. Freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the impact of microRNA sequences and related molecular genetic issues on the human body.
Peer-reviewed and published in-vitro research shows gene based vaccine-generated spike proteins can migrate into human cell nuclei to disrupt DNA repair mechanisms. The TGA has dealt with this abysmally—murderously?
Vaccine-derived RNA can be reverse transcribed, leading to possible integration into the human genome, which the TGA denies, based only on pharmaceutical companies telling them to deny it.
Internal Pfizer data released in February indicate they accept 1,272 different adverse vaccine events, including paralysis and death.
German and US insurance actuarial data suggests the TGA’s database of adverse event notifications is underreporting side effects ninefold.
Freedom of information documents from 2018 show the TGA keeps two databases of adverse event notifications: one internal, showing all reports of harm; and one public, showing only a part of those.
This means vaccine harm is most likely significantly higher than reported.
Without honest and accurate data, the Senate has no way of deciding how much harm is too much harm.
German pathologists describe pathological aggregates of spike proteins and lymphocyte infiltrations in inflamed organs in autopsies related to death post vaccination.
In response, the TGA is failing to conduct autopsies on the 800 Australians the patients’ own doctors have reported as having died from the vaccines. What the hell is the TGA hiding?
Whistleblowers to the British Medical Journal provided reports of inadequacies, irregularities and possible fraudulent practices in the Pfizer vaccine trial—you know, the same trial for which the TGA took Pfizer’s word.
From a modern immunological perspective, two frequent vaccines for respiratory viruses run the risk of desensitising the immune responses to the virus, and that leads to hypoimmunity and worse illness than without the immunisation. To put that simply: repeated vaccination is doing more harm than good.
These are the matters I sought today to refer to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 without success. I thank Senators Hanson, Abetz, Rennick and Antic for their support, integrity and courage.
The truth is the Select Committee on COVID-19 has been running a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry, and today’s vote proves it.
This unprecedented betrayal of the Australian people must be referred immediately to a royal commission. To the Prime Minister, the health minister, the federal health department and all those in the Senate and the House of Representatives—all of you who have perpetrated this crime—I direct one question: how the hell do you expect to get away with it?
We’re not going to let you get away with it. We won’t let you get away with it. We are coming for you. We have the stamina to hound you down and we damn well will.
COVID UNDER QUESTION is a cross-party inquiry into the Government’s response to COVID held on 23rd March 2022. COVID Under Question was hosted by Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation Federal Senator for Queensland) and attended by Stephen Andrew (One Nation Queensland State MP for Mirani), George Christensen (Federal Nationals MP for Dawson), Gerard Rennick (Federal Liberal Senator for Queensland), Alex Antic (Federal Liberal Senator for South Australia) and Craig Kelly (Federal Palmer United Australia MP for Hughes).
Parliamentarians heard from a range of Doctors, experts, economists and everyday people about how the Government’s response to COVID has affected them and at times defied belief. The absurdity of Chief Health Officer dictates and power hungry politicians is all laid bare.
The full day’s proceedings were recorded and available for public viewing.
“To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough
to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out.
This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs.
Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and
their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”
With the release of COVID vaccines, and then the mandates, we’ve seen a new resurgence of people attempting to gain religious exemptions.
Many of these attempts focus on fetal tissue obtained through abortion.
On January 19, 2021, AnnaMaria Cardinalli published an explosive article in Crisis Magazine, headlined, “Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine.”
Cardinalli details the collection of fetal tissue for the cell line named HEK 293.
The tissue was taken from an aborted infant in the Netherlands in 1972-3.
This cell line was used for “testing” the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
Cardinalli writes: “We know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not use any cells derived from abortion in the production process. That is, we know that we are not being directly injected with fetal cells or their engineered descendants (though this fact differs with other manufacturers). We hear that the abortion-derived cell lines were only used in testing, which should somehow comfort us, though it still means that the vaccines from which we seek to benefit depend on the involvement of abortion. We are told that the cell line used in testing came from one abortion, which took place decades ago. These things are all true, but they do not serve to inform us fully.”
“What we may not know follows. The most prominent cell line, called HEK 293, comes from an abortion performed in the 1970’s…”
“HEK stands for human embryonic kidney. To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out. This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs. Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”
“There is no way that a spontaneous abortion could result in the cell line (as the kidneys cannot remain viable past the brief window in which they must be harvested) or that some brilliant researcher found a way for great good to come out of a rare tragedy by making use of a child’s body donated to science after it was aborted. The deliberate killing of an unwanted child (a little girl, in the case of HEK 293) took place in the tortuous manner it did precisely to obtain her organs for research. The harvest of her organs was the direct cause of her death, prior to which, she was a living child, outside the womb.”
“I fear that Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict may not have had this information when they received the vaccines. If we re-examine the Vatican statement that ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and productions process,’ we see that it does not apply here. It does not imagine this scenario. To approve of the currently-available vaccines, it would have to read ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from living persons, killed by the harvest of their organs for use in medical research and productions processes,’ but the Church’s moral teachings could never truly bend so far.
Similar to the human rights abuses exposed by international tribunal in today’s China, where unwanted individuals such as religious and political dissidents are executed by the harvest of their organs for profit, the little girl whose cells gave rise to the COVID-19 vaccines was brutally sacrificed for the purpose, as were all the children whose cell lines failed before her.”
After reading Cardinalli’s analysis—not only should the granting of religious exemptions from vaccination be a foregone conclusion; the whole field of fetal tissue research, going back many years and involving many pharmaceutical products, should be put on trial.
The people who have been carrying out the murders, the people who have been using the harvested tissue, the companies—all of them—on trial.
I hope many medical professionals will take Cardinalli’s article as a springboard, and weigh in on what she is very clearly stating.
And not just doctors. All people who are shocked by her conclusions.
So far, I see one counter-claim to Cardinalli’s assertions:
The notion that the kidneys of the aborted baby must be harvested very quickly is false. The kidneys can survive for a longer period.
On that score, I refer you to a devastating video interview conducted by Robert Kennedy Jr. His guest was SOUND CHOICE PHARMACEUTICAL INSTITUTE “President and Founder, Dr. Theresa Deisher Ph.D., [with] over 30 years of pharmaceutical research and leadership experience. She discovered adult cardiac derived stem cells, has worked on their therapeutic uses as an alternative to human fetal DNA, and leads a team of scientists at AVM Biotechnology dedicated to changing what a diagnosis of cancer, autoimmunity, or chronic infectious disease means to patients and their loved ones. As a result of this work, Dr. Deisher is named as an inventor on over 47 patents.”
In the first 15 minutes of the interview, Deisher makes it quite clear that infants in the womb are taken out alive, with their blood supply functioning (essential) and then killed by cutting out their hearts or their brains. This is what is done in order to obtain tissue that will be turned into fetal cell lines.
Since this act of murder is standard practice, it would appear it was committed against the live baby whose kidney cells became cell line HEK 293, used in testing the COVID vaccines.
At the top of the interview, Kennedy said he didn’t want to get into the moral aspect of fetal cell lines. But after listening to Deisher, he was quite shaken. He said so. He said they would have to cover the moral aspect.
The whole world has to.
Here is the basic ramification: THERE IS A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.
For all people of faith. Every faith.
“According to my religious belief, the murder of an undeniably live infant for any reason is unconscionable and evil, and I refuse the vaccine.”
Here is a Force against which no government, no establishment, no secret society, no wealth can stand.
I fully understand all sorts of professionals will spout language that purports to show “the aborted infant was not alive, the lab followed all the legal guidelines, this is an old argument that has been debunked…”
But this is not just an old argument. This is the equivalent of an opening statement in a murder trial. Nothing less.
If religious leaders will read AnnaMaria Cardinalli’s article, they will see how important her charge is.
The question isn’t “will people of faith wake up and do what they should”; the question is “how can any person of faith NOT do what they should”.
If they will make a stand; if all people of faith will; the entire dire situation we are facing changes in the blink of an eye.
Solomon to God: “You have made Your servant king instead of my father David, but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in…Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil.”
Gautama Buddha: “To cease from evil, to do good, and to purify the mind yourself, this is the teaching of all the Buddhas.”
John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
Would any church, any religion in the world say that God wants the killing of live infants for the purpose of medical research?
In the midst of this COVID tyranny, haven’t we all been looking for a truth that will galvanize huge numbers of people?
And not as some kind of stunt. But rather as an inevitable outcome of deep faith.
Faith and justice come from the same everlasting tree.
Below you will find a video presentation by Dr. Tom Cowan. The questions Dr. Cowan raises, the facts he presents, and the clarity he brings to the discussion of “viruses” and the field of virology are essential to our global conversation and quest to understand the truth. Truth Comes to Light has provided a basic transcript and added links to references for added clarity.
Over the past few years, we have shared many articles on this site related to this inquiry into the truth about “viruses” and the whole field of virology, including information on terrain theory vs germ theory. Find links here: Viruses, Vaccines & the History of Modern Medicine. At the end of this post you will find a selected list of related articles.
A few quotes from Dr. Cowan’s video:
“Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?”
“They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.
“Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.”
“So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.
“So I ask myself how did they do that?”
“What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?”
“Do we really know if mRNA is in these vaccines?
“Where is the paper? Where is the evidence that there actually is mRNA in these injections?”
Okay, so before I get into talking about the question that so many people keep asking me: What about gain of function, lab-created viruses, bio labs now allegedly in the Ukraine?
So what is the science behind that?
So we’ll get into that in a minute. And before that I have a very short, little clip to play.
So that clip pretty much sums it up. That was from our friend Dr. Sam Bailey and our other good friend Stefan Lanka.
So on that note, the reason I wanted to talk about this subject is there was a recent paper that was put out by Dr. Mercola…
So let’s just read the first couple paragraphs there. So this is a summary:
“A study published February 21, 2022, (so very recently) in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.
The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.
According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.
According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.”
Okay, so why is this important? So obviously, there’s been a lot of attention in the political sphere and in the anti-vax community. There have been movies written about this.
There are many lectures, many prominent people in the “freedom” or “anti-vax” community who are investigating these patents, and saying that these patents — and as Dr. Mercola said, this study in Frontiers in Virology is literally the smoking gun proving that Moderna patented a sequence, which ended up in SARS-CoV-2, “the virus”, and the only way it could have gotten there is, not through natural evolution (that is a one in three trillion chance) but if it was introduced into the virus by some laboratory technique.
This theory is crucial to our understanding, not only of whether there were crimes committed, but the whole theory of virology and gain-of-function research and all that.
So, obviously, and this should go without saying, that the most important part of this is: Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?
The rest of the article goes on to talk about what we know about this MSH3 sequence and the protein that it allegedly codes for.
But I want to emphasize again and again and again — the whole point of this is: This sequence which was patented by Moderna in 2016 is identical to the sequence found in SARS-CoV-2.
That is the point.
If we can demonstrate that there is no SARS-CoV-2 and this is not the genome of this alleged virus, then none of the rest of this has any validity or is of any use at all.
It’s all just a sort of smokescreen or a way to throw us off the track about finding out what really is going on.
I cannot emphasize how important this is.
So for the next few minutes we’re going to actually look at how the authors of the article in Frontiers of Virology — what were they claiming was the SARS-CoV-2 genome?
What were they claiming was the evidence that there is a SARS-CoV-2 virus that they could then compare the patent to?
Again, if there’s no virus and there’s no genome then they can’t possibly have put this sequence into a virus or a genome. And it can’t possibly be the thing that’s affecting the world.
So, now let’s be clear about the next step. There is no mention in this story by Dr. Mercola of how the Frontiers in Virology authors found the genome or found the virus.
[…]
In other words, there is no information in here of how Dr. Mercola actually knows there’s a SARS-CoV-2 genome.
But the authors of the Frontiers in Virology paper said that they were comparing the sequence, the mRNA sequence patented by Moderna in 2016, to the genome found in our old friend paper by Chinese virologist Fan Wu.
So it isn’t that we picked this paper by random. It isn’t that I picked this paper to investigate how they found the genome or what their evidence for the virus was. This is the paper that the authors of the Frontiers in Virology use to compare the Moderna patent to.
So we’re using their information and this is their evidence, their proof that the virus exists.
So this is about: Did the paper by Fan Wu prove that the virus existed — the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists — and that this is the genome of the virus?
Again, in order to say that the patented sequence matches 100% to the genome of the virus, obviously, obviously, you have to know that this is actually a virus.
So, this is an old friend, we’ve been through this many times, but let’s see what they say.
So here is the paper, published in the prestigious journal, I believe, Nature — February 3, 2020.
So this is the paper, again, that was cited by the authors of Frontiers in Virology paper that is used as the reference genome.
So how did they do it?
So first we have a summary.
So how did they identify the “virus”? So I’m gonna run down the steps that they used and then we will show the clips, the actual wording from the paper, so that you know that this is actually the facts.
Okay, so we’re looking to find a virus and then find the genome of that virus — a virus that had never been found before.
So first thing they take lung fluid from one person. That’s a huge sample size (that’s a little tongue-in-cheek). That’s obviously just one person. That is a kind of ridiculous experiment to find a new virus.
Then they isolated the RNA, which is a genetic material, from the fluid in that person’s lung. They did not attempt to purify any particles that they could say you were a virus. They did not do any pictures of any virus. They did not do any maceration, filtration, ultracentrifugation to see if they had any such particles. None of that.
They took RNA from the lung fluid, of which we have many possible sources. We have bacterial sources, fungal sources, human sources, possibly viral sources, exosome sources, multivesicular body sources — many sources of RNA. We have no idea the source of that RNA.
Then they create what’s called an mRNA library, which is a catalog of all of the RNA pieces that are in that lung fluid.
This requires that they amplify these pieces of RNA with the process called RT-PCR. And, as we have demonstrated over and over again. and is completely substantiated in the literature, doing PCR amplification of RNA cycles inevitably creates new sequences of RNA which weren’t there in the original sample.
In some cases, if you do enough amplification cycles — up to even 80% of the sequences — after 45 cycles are made de novo, or anew, by the actual PCR process itself.
So now we have yet another source of our RNA. Not only do we have potential viruses, exosomes, multivesicular bodies, apoptotic bodies, human lung tissue, human epithelial lung tissue…, fungal RNA, bacterial RNA — we also have new pieces of RNA generated by the test itself.
Then they performed pair and sequencing that generates 150 base pair reads. That means they matched the sequence by pairing the ends. And you end up with sequences that are basically 150 base pairs long. That’s a fairly small amount. And this results in 56.5 million of these 150 base pair sequences known as reads.
So to be clear, they take this mass, not knowing any idea the origin of these mRNA, they chopped them up into sequences that are 150 base pairs (that’s fairly short) long by pairing the ends. They have 56.5 million of these reads. And then they start doing what’s called de novo assemble.
So there is no sequencing here. There is assembly. And, as it says, you can make a lot of genomes with that many reads.
So they put these 56 million, 150 base pair, reads in aa assembly computer program and… they actually put it in two different computer programs. And one of the computer programs generated 384,000 different sequences. The other one generated over a million sequences.
So now these sequences — all 384,000 of them — are meant to be the possible genomes of this virus. For some reason, they threw away the program that made over a million of these sequences and said the one that made 384,000 — I think that was Megahit — one of those must be the right sequence, the actual sequence of the virus.
Just to be clear, at no point did they ever find a particle. At no point did they purify or isolate a particle.
At no point did they find in any particle… an entire string of RNA, which they then sequenced one by one to find out the sequence of the genetic material of this particle.
None of that was done. All they did was chop up RNA from many different possible sources, put that in a computer program, generate 384,000 and a million in another, and then they went hunting for infectious agents and performed a search of those sequences.
The two longest sequences were a close match to a bat SARS-like coronavirus genome, found 15 years ago or so, that was made in exactly the same way — never having isolated or purified a particle, never having found an intact genome, never having sequenced the genome.
They just did the same sort of assembly, no sequencing of RNA from God knows where. And, this one, the longest one was a 89% match to the previous SARS coronavirus that they did in the same way.
And, as we say: Boom! There is the new novel human coronavirus — even though, as we’ve said over and over again, humans and chimpanzees are about a 96% match. So to say it was an 89% match is essentially like saying there’s no way this could have been anywhere similar to the previous bat SARS-like coronavirus.
In other words, they never found a virus. They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.
Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.
This is a manuscript draft and I don’t know when it will be published.
When I read this, just remember that all these articles that go into The Lancet have to pay homage to the virus god. But I will explain what they mean here.
So this is the interpretation of the entire article. I won’t go through their methods.
“The RNA code counted in PCR tests, previously attributed to SARS-CoV-2, belongs instead to a respiratory-virus-induced immune system response by human cells that liberate exosomes, and that vitiate PCR test results. PCR tests have zero specificity in vivo due to the exosome RNA.”
[…]
And they go on in this article, just as we’re saying — the reality is all of these RNA sequences, all of these reads which were assembled into a viral genome, actually when you do careful analysis, come from human epithelial lung cells.
In other words, just as we’ve been saying all along, these are not viruses. These are breakdown products of our own tissue. And the misconception in calling them a virus needs to stop.
And this idea that they put this patented sequence into a virus can’t possibly be true because, simply, there is no virus.
And all the rest of the article is for not — because nobody put a RNA sequence, patented or otherwise, into a virus.
Now just to show you that we got this from the article — so here is the one patient presenting with cough, etc. So that’s the evidence that we were correct about the one patient.
Here is the evidence that the paired and 150 base pair reads sequencing of the RNA library was performed on this computer platform. So the sequencing yields reads of only 150 base pairs. The whole SARS-CoV-2 genome is supposed to be 30,000.
That means they had to stitch it together using a computer program. This was an assembled genome, out of little bits from God knows where.
And here we see the 56.5 million reads were assembled using Megahit and Trinity. Trinity, they got over a million. They generated a total of 384,000 contigs (that’s sequences).
Trinity generated 1.3 million. They don’t like those because they weren’t long enough. They compared those with the database and compared and found that it was somewhat, although not really similar to a previous bat coronavirus. So, as he says, sequencing results in more than 56 million reads.
How can you possibly differentiate what is from a potential virus from everything else? The answer is you can’t.
And finally… The longest contig is generated by Megahits. The longest one by Trinity is 11,000. How come they didn’t use this one?
Both showed similarity to bat coronavirus. They were found at high abundance. It was only 89 percent similar. That means 11 percent didn’t match. That is a huge amount.
Then they just moved on to develop primers all from this one assay without isolating anything, and from one patient.
And, my friends, that is not science; that is propaganda, as is the entire story of a lab engineered virus.
Now, the real issue here and one of the reasons why this, to me, is so important, is if you go by this unscientific theory that there’s a lab-created virus, you actually miss what I would say are the three most important questions to be asked, and then answered, about this situation.
And so now I’m talking — I would say theory. Where everything else was what I would call simply facts.
So the question that should be asked (and it would be nice to have answers for, and which I don’t have the answers for, but I have some theories) is, to me, the most interesting thing is —
So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.
So I ask myself how did they do that? How did they make — like there’s two theories, there’s two ways of looking at this.
One is: They don’t want that to happen and so it was a mistake.
But, if we think, which I’m inclined to do, that “they” (meaning Moderna and other people) wanted this to happen so that they could throw people off and essentially create a kind of patsy out there, how did they do it?
So I have three possible theories as to how they did it.
Now, let me be clear.
What I’m trying to figure out is these guys Fan Wu and others, Chinese virologists, having, I don’t think, any connection with Moderna, come up with a bogus, anti-scientific genome and for some unbelievable coincidence — let’s say for now — it actually matches exactly one of the patented sequences from the Moderna patent of four years prior. How did that happen?
So possibility number one: It was dumb luck. They just made this sequence and it just so happened to match the Moderna patent. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s actually the right answer.
The second possibility: … Somebody from Moderna or somebody — I don’t know who — calls up Fan Wu and says ‘I want you to make a genome out of nothing and I want it to have this particular sequence in it so some day people will find this out and say “you see, they genetically engineered this sequence”‘. Got it? In other words, there was collusion between the patenters (that’s Moderna) and Fan Wu and his team.
Now I gotta tell you, I actually don’t think that’s true. I would actually love to find out if it is true and if there is a phone call from doctor head of Moderna saying, you know, ‘Hey Wu, would you put this sequence in there so that we can — people find out that it was a genetically engineered sequence?’ But I just don’t think that happens.
And then I came up with a third possibility which is: Once I discovered all these people who are looking into all these patents, that there was at least 70 different patents taken out, of different sequences of RNA, that could end up in a genome. Now, my guess is … I would think it’s a good possibility that one of those sequences may end up in the final genome. And then you would then implant the story that this was a genetically engineered organism and there you go.
So you wouldn’t have to rely on luck, you wouldn’t have to actually have collusion, you could just patent a whole lot of different sequences, for instance, that came in the SARS-1 genome. You could patent all kinds of sequences knowing that, at the end of the day, when somebody makes up this new fraudulent genome it’s bound to have one of them in there. Somebody will find it some day, say it’s the smoking gun and you then implanted the story of the century which does nothing but throws people off.
So those are my three options. I’d be happy to hear about any other possible options. But those were the only three that I could come up with.
Now, the final question then is: What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?
And, I must say, I don’t know what they’re doing in the labs and I don’t think really anybody knows — including in the Chinese labs or Ukrainian labs or North Carolina labs or any other labs.
So again, I have some possibilities.
One is the following …
Screenshot image from BrandNewTube video (specific video source unknown)
They’re doing this.
In other words, what the virologists do is they dress up in hazmat suits and they go on to their computer and start making sequences. And the hazmat suits are crucial, because, as we all know, it’s very possible for the sequences to jump from the computer into their eyes. So it’s very important, as you can see, that they wear goggles and protective head gear to prevent the computer sequences from jumping directly in their eyes.
In other words, they may be just doing nothing and it may be just a whole lot of hooey to get people to worry about things. And to implant in their minds that there is this horrible engineered virus, that we should all be scared of viruses, etc. So that’s one possibility.
Another one is they’re making some sort of proteins or genetic material which can be injected into people. In other words, they’re making toxins. And that is certainly possible.
So those are the two main categories that I came up with. Either they’re just doing nothing and they’re just a front, or a smoke screen, or they’re actually making stuff which isn’t good for people.
And that gets into my final thing that I want to point out.
… This section right here. this is something I’ve been very interested. So this is again from the Mercola article:
“For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. (I’m not going to get into that.) The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein. 11“
Now, I have been asking the question now for months: Where is the paper? Where is the evidence (a) that there actually is mRNA in these injections? They say there is. That’s the whole point. But when people look there either seems to be not there or in variable amounts depending on which injection and which batch.
So it could be that even the whole mRNA in the jab is a actual smokescreen or cover for what’s really in these injections –which is a lot worse stuff like self assembling nanoparticles which we’ve heard about a lot.
So I was very interested to see that this was… stated as fact, because I can’t find a paper, and my friends can’t find a paper, that confirms that abundant copies of this protein are actually made when you inject this sequence.
And this would be like saying — if I wanted to get investors for my new pencil factory, my investors might ask me to see the pencils that we make. And so it would be natural for me to produce copies of the pencils — maybe tens or hundreds or thousands or millions of them — to show that my technology for making pencils actually works.
One would think that if the whole point of these jabs is to make you make spike proteins that, therefore, “confer immunity”, there would be scores, hundreds, thousands of papers showing here’s the amount of spike proteins in an unjabbed person. And then you jab them and then 10 minutes, half an hour, three hours, two weeks, six months, 12 years later, here’s the amount of spike protein. That would prove that the concept is real and that you can actually genetically alter a human being.
Because I have my doubts. So I’m looking for a reference to show this is true. And, lo and behold, here is the reference. Number 11. [see page 3 of Mercola article] So where is the reference from? CBS News.
Now, I could say — I would say if it was from Fox or MSNBC then I would be skeptical. But the fact it’s from CBS, that must mean it’s true. And obviously I’m kidding. Let’s see the reference.
If the whole point of this is to put RNA into injections, make you make a spike protein which is allegedly from the virus, let’s actually see that it works. And here’s a quote saying there’s at least 73 patents.
My guess is one of them was bound to show up in the imaginary sequence. Bingo! We’ve got proof that it’s there, that it was a genetically engineered virus.
And the whole thing, hopefully you now see, comes crashing down like a house of cards if, as we showed, there was no virus genetically engineered or otherwise in the first place.
[At this point in the video, Tom takes questions from the viewers.]
Question: So this one is related, but it has to do with Dr. Bush‘s reference to 10 to the 30th power of viruses within our blood, as well as in the oceans, in the soil. His purpose is to provide constant flow of updated genomic information that we need to in order to adapt and survive. And they’re not pathogens. That we need not fear, etc., etc.
Answer: So he also has said that, of course, viruses are pathogens. The real issue here is how did they find these 10 to the 30th power viruses? And I’ve gone over this, especially in reference to a paper, and I don’t remember the name, but it’s called the ….something to do with the renaming or the re-evaluating of viral…virome…viral world or something like that.
The reason people say this is because they don’t realize that they’re not talking about actual organisms or particles called viruses. They’re talking about liberated pieces of either RNA or DNA — little snippets of RNA or DNA which then get amplified in what’s called metagenomics sequencing and so there are billions and billions and billions of these breakdown products. None of them have anything to do with a virus. They’re simply little bits of genetic garbage that are coming off of our cells and tissues all the time. They have no particular meaning or function that anybody has been able to prove. They’re just little bits of garbage. And the misconception that they’re somehow actual particles and could possibly hurt you or could possibly help you is just a misunderstanding of how they found viruses in the first place.
They don’t find particles. They don’t purify particles. There haven’t been 10 to the 30th purified particles. We’re talking about little pieces of DNA or RNA that get amplified, called viruses, which is a misconception big time.
[Additional questions include speculation about the patent links to the Fan Wu team “discovery” as well as a question about allergies.]
Articles mentioned in this video presentation:
Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016 by Dr. Joseph Mercola [originally published March 7, 2022 at this link — https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/07/moderna-patented-spike-protein.aspx — and was mirrored around the web. It can still be found at Dr. Mercola’s paid archive membership.] Dr. Cowan has provided a pdf file of the article here: https://brandfolder.com/s/fv2q4h7fp84bm5vb3ppn37
We’ve seen the unbelievable microscopy images of the experimental jabs from other investigators around the world, but we wanted to see it for ourselves! There are now 4 teams working on this in New Zealand and Dr Robin Wakeling has agreed to go public with his findings.
He compares the Pfizer jab to other vaccines and discusses the startling findings with Dr Mark Bailey.
For the past two years humanity has been under attack. And entire populations have been put under draconian restrictions under the claim that there is a pandemic.
For those of us that can see there is no evidence of a virus, the war on humanity is even more egregious.
However, within the wider circle of those questioning the covid narrative, a common theme is that something is badly wrong with the offered solution in the form of experimental vaccines.
By early 2020 globalist organizations were indicating the rollout of their touted universal vaccines and an injection in every arm.
In 2021 citizen scientists began examining the injections under the microscope and the revelations was startling.
At the forefront of the research has been the La Quinta Columna team who have produced many light and electron micrograph images, as well as detailed analysis of self-assembling particles, graphene components and potential nanotechnology.
Here in New Zealand we also have several teams who have backed up these findings.
Of course, there have been dismissals that we are just seeing artifacts or, in a sense, crystals.
That’s why we asked Dr. Robin Wakeling, a senior microbiologist and nano-emulsion delivery technology expert, to perform his own analysis of the Pfizer BioNtech product.
He joined my husband, Dr Mike Bailey, to explain the behavior of the product under the microscope. Over time and under the influence of various environmental factors, he compares his findings to known colloidal structures and other vaccines.
And, as the other investigators around the world, reaches some disturbing conclusions.
Dr. Mark Bailey
Welcome everyone. I’m doctor Mark Bailey in Christchurch, New Zealand, and it’s my pleasure to be speaking with Dr Robin Wakeling, coming in from Wellington, New Zealand.
Robin is a microbiologist, PhD and world expert in decay and mold forensics. He’s supervised polymerase chain reaction research and been a vocal critic of the pseudoscience taking place in the alleged covid pandemic.
Robin has thousands of hours of microscopy experience and has previously been involved in the development of patented nano- emulsion delivery technologies. So what better person to take a look at the Pfizer BioNTech products up close?
Now we’ve seen from some of the electromicroscopy images, coming in from other countries such as Spain and Germany, which have demonstrated that the injections contain what appear to be undeclared constituents including graphene oxide, and what could be interpreted as being nanotechnology.
Today we’re gonna take a look at the Pfizer products under the light microscope for ourselves and see how it behaves on a slightly larger scale and how perhaps that coheres to the overseas proceeds findings.
So Robin I’ll hand over to you and perhaps you can stop by telling the audience what kind of microscope you’re using and the grades of magnification we’re looking at.
Dr. Robin Wakeling
Okay, thanks Mark. Yes I use a compound light microscope with a basic magnification of 650 although the software that puts it on the computer screen sort of doubles that approximately.
I use phase contrast most of the time. A couple of the images are using bright field and polarized light.
And then I included a few images of other workers which were dark field. But most of my work was with phase contrast. And the magnification and scale, I’ll remind the audience of as we go through.
Okay, so the overarching theme of this presentation is what …. are the undisclosed ingredients in Comirnaty. We know that there are at least two declared undisclosed ingredients.
In other words they’re just coded. We don’t know what they are on the basis that they are proprietary excipients. So we know that there are some unknowns and possibly some undeclared unknowns also.
So that’s really the overarching question that we’re addressing.
[…]
There are three main findings of the microscopic images that we’re producing or suggesting — the key findings.
So the first one is that the lipid nanoparticles that are contained in Comirnaty — and I’ll explain what LNPs are in a moment — but it appears that they are continuing to self assemble in a way that forms much larger colloidal structures of some highly varied and somewhat rarefied forms.
The second main key finding was that these colloidal structures then seem to change their form in response to collision with interfaces like the glass surfaces of the microscope, preparations, or air bubbles, or other interfaces — whereby they start to take on a much more structured and unnatural formation with a lot of straight lines and right angles — sort of things that don’t usually occur in nature outside of crystallography.
And what we’re going to be showing most of the time has some profound differences to crystal structure. So we’ll cover that too.
And so the third finding, which is where the other two kind of lead to, and it’s where other workers have sort of jumped into the deep end with some of the dark field work that’s been done.
These right-angled sheets and wires seem to form colloidal structures… in some situations, where it appears that some environmental triggers are involved….
They seem to order themselves in a highly-ordered complex way — a way that is quite unusual. Certainly not something that the people who are looking at this have seen before. And these are people who should be familiar with this sort of thing…
Because some human beings care about their children, VAERS was established in 1990 as an early warning system to identify negative reactions and side effects of vaccination, which makes sense.
But there are major problems. It is managed by the FDA and the CDC, which explains why the VAERS database requires a class to learn how to find anything.
Taking the time to actually file a report is voluntary. And out of fear of losing their jobs or being considered an anti-vaxxer, nobody wants to speak ill of the all-holy vaccine, let alone make an official report.
It is estimated that only one percent of vaccine injuries ever get reported to VAERS. So that means when VAERS reports over 44,000 adverse reactions and 90 deaths, one can expect it to be as much as 4.4 million adverse reactions and 9,000 deaths.
And these numbers are only from the age 5 to 17 group.
Conservative numbers put it at 10 percent, which is half a million children that have been wounded and killed from an unneeded, unwanted, experimental gene therapy shot that we were lied to about every step of the way.
Thanks to the OpenVAERS project, which is built upon the VAERS data, the public can easily search these reports and see for themselves.
People are reporting adverse reactions such as chronic pain, loss of hearing and taste, talking gibberish, and acting out aggressively. And these are the mild cases.
There is a tsunami of major brain damage, heart disease and fatalities. Edward Dowd has analyzed the data and has reported an 84 percent increase in deaths among ages 25 through 40, which is the same amount of lives lost to the Vietnam War.
Toby Rogers estimates that Big Pharma kills twice as many people that died in World War II every single year.
The press ignores this because it’s not enough.
They want your newborn babies as well.
Pfizer is pushing to have children as young as 6 months old given a shot that we know is potentially fatal, even though children were never at risk and are still not at risk.
The United States has been force-injecting infants and children with experimental vaccines for years. And now they want to add the infamous ‘clot shot’.
Thanks to virtue-signaling mothers, some children have already been getting it in the womb which is resulting in miscarriages, still births, and deaths from breast feeding on toxic genetically-modified mother’s milk.
Pfizer is planning on submitting another application for emergency use authorization in early April.
That’s about 18 million children under five who could be sacrificed to the altar of Big Pharma and political correctness.
If Pfizer can achieve permanent liability protection from the FDA, who they control, then they can add the mRNA gene therapy shot to the childhood vaccine schedule where it will enjoy permanent liability protection under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
These same crooks are putting a judge on the Supreme Court who openly defends leniency towards crimes that involve child rape.
They’re coming for your children and they will not stop.
If you still care about the human race and are looking for something you can do right now, you can go to Toby Rogers at substack and read his urgent call to action for more info.
Dr. David Martin recently filed the first in a series of lawsuits in Federal Court “to get the truth out” about COVID-19 gene therapy injections and “take back America from the COVID pandemic scare.” In what he calls a “multi-step process,” Martin explains the first lawsuit will put into the public record “that the COVID vaccine is not a vaccine.” Instead, Martin explains the Injections are experimental gene therapies “known to kill people, known to actually stay inside of the human body for over 60 days producing pathogens that are scheduled toxins.”
The lawsuit, Griner v. Biden et al., was filed on Mar. 4, 2022, in the U.S. District Court in Utah on behalf of Devan Griner, MD, a double-board certified surgeon and widely published author who has transformed the lives of hundreds of children in Utah and beyond. Besides naming Joe Biden, defendants include Xavier Becerra of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its leaders.
Martin maintains we need to stop forcing and bribing people to get the shot, stating, “Those are illegal acts in the United States and cannot be done.” Martin explains that the first lawsuit is in part litigation for discovery—revealing the criminal conspiracy Martin has talked about for years—as much as it is a litigation for the facts, as both are equally important. Martin is confident the disclosures that will have to be filed by the Federal Government in response to the first case “are, in fact, going to be incriminating for our next case.” Looking forward to obtaining evidence of the felony, Martin explained:
“We wrote this case so that the immunity shield falls away from the manufacturers and all of the injuries and deaths become civil liabilities to the manufacturers.”
Martin, who indicated that Utah is the perfect jurisdiction to begin his campaign, pointed out that when a term like “vaccination” is used, the public believes they are getting something that will keep them from getting sick or transmitting sickness. Instead, Martin asserts that after receiving the COVID-19 injection(s), individuals turn into a biological weapons factory. Explaining further, he declares:
“And [vaccination] is actually defined in the statute exactly that it’s the ability to put something into the body that stimulates the immune system. It turns out that the mRNA that’s being injected into people is not that. In fact, specifically, what it does is take a little computer-simulated strand of mRNA, it sends it into the body, and the body becomes a biological weapons factory. It manufacturers spike proteins. The injection does not stimulate any immunity.
[Instead], it is the instructions to make a scheduled pathogen. And the scheduled pathogen is defined under three different parts of the code, but it specifically includes genetic sequences derived from—are you ready for this—SARS coronavirus. That’s actually a scheduled, known toxin on the scheduled list of biological weapons in the United States code.”
The 32-page lawsuit, with 171 pages of Exhibits, begins by highlighting that the CMS mandate requires almost every employee of any healthcare facility receiving Medicaid or Medicaid funding to “receive one of the three Injections authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration as COVID-19 vaccines (the “Injections”).”
CMS Mandate Must Be Struck Down
The suit further explains that Plaintiff, Dr. Griner—who has natural immunity and refuses to take one of the injections—is a “highly skilled and well-known plastic surgeon licensed to practice in Utah whose passion is healing children who suffer from cleft palates and other congenital defects.” The doctor has traveled the world on more than twenty medical missions, donating his time to help unfortunate children. However, the lawsuit asserts that the CMS Mandate prevents Dr. Griner from continuing to heal children—unless he takes one of the Injections. Noting that Dr. Griner enjoys robust and durable natural immunity after having recovered from COVID-19, the lawsuit explains:
Dr. Griner is subject to the CMS Mandate because the hospitals in which he has the right to practice receive CMS funding. Thus, Dr. Griner must choose not just between his “job and the jab,” as the Fifth Circuit has phrased it, he must also choose between pursuing his passion for healing children with congenital defects and taking the Injection. This despite the fact that the only justification for forcing Dr. Griner to take the injection is the assertion that doing so will prevent Dr. Griner from transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to his patients and other health care workers with whom he comes in contact, something the CDC readily admits the Injection simply does not do.
The lawsuit insists the CMS Mandate must be “struck down” because overwhelming evidence—along with admission by the CDC Director—shows that the injections do not prevent transmission, infection, or reinfection in those who receive them. And despite the windfall profits being made by the big pharma giants making the Injections, the CDC has admitted that both the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread COVID-19.
Regardless of CDC Definition Change, Injections Are Treatments, Not Vaccines
Furthermore, the lawsuit states the Injections fail to confer immunity “but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2.” With this in mind, Plaintiff argues the shots are instead treatments and not vaccines, as that term has already been defined in the law. Displaying the CDC’s changing narrative connected to COVID “vaccines” in the brief, and the fact the CMS Mandate rests squarely on the basis that the Injection prevents transmission, the suit reveals:
In fact, the CDC has actually changed its definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” so that the Injections would fit within the new definition. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control defined a “Vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.
The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
Both prior definitions fit the common understanding of those terms. To be vaccinated meant that the recipient should have lasting, robust immunity to the disease targeted by the vaccine.
But on Sept. 1, 2021, the CDC quietly rewrote these definitions. It changed the definition of a “Vaccine” to: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” It changed the definition of “Vaccination” to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to protection from a specific disease.”
Thus, the CDC has eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” Upon information and belief, the CDC did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19.
This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which Dr. Griner has the fundamental human right to refuse.
In great detail, the lawsuit expands on the conviction held by numerous experts that the Injections are treatments, not vaccines. The claim reminds us that the FDA categorizes the shots as “CBER-Regulated Biologics,” otherwise known as “therapeutics,” which falls under the “Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.”
Indeed, among the eight professional examples offered in the suit to corroborate that the Injections do not create an immunity that prevents the transmission of COVID-19 to others, the case quoted NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci’s declaration to NPR on July 27, 2021, when he stated, “We know now as a fact that [vaccinated people with COVID-19] are capable of transmitting the infection to someone else.” Additionally, the head of the Oxford vaccine team Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, is quoted in the case as saying on Oct. 8, 2021:
“We don’t have anything that will stop transmission, so I think we are in a situation where herd immunity is not a possibility, and I suspect the virus will throw up a new variant that is even better at infecting vaccinated individuals.”
Martin Insists Injections are Gene Therapy Medical Devices
Furthermore, Plaintiff declares that with rapidly waning effects, the Injections are not “vaccines,” but are instead “gene therapy medical devices” and should be appropriately classified as such. As illustrated in the screenshot below, Moderna (Pfizer uses the same technology) recognizes that its mRNA platform is not a vaccine. Instead, it is “gene therapy in the form of biological “software” developed to genetically “hack” the machinery of human cells to construct a specific protein.
Elaborating further on the role the mRNA plays in the Injections, the lawsuit summarizes that the specific protein that human cells are “hacked” to create is the spiked protein of the disease. Essentially, the Injections genetically modify human cells to make the same toxic protein that the disease itself creates—the spiked protein. With no known method to reverse the detrimental effects of the Injections, the lawsuit continues, explaining:
These spiked proteins adhere to the endothelial cells of humans, the very cells that line the entire cardiovascular system. The spike proteins adhere to the interior of the cardiovascular system like thorns on a rose bush, causing a variety of detrimental effects, the short- and long-term impact of which are currently unknown and unknowable.
According to a June 01, 2021, bio-distribution study from the Japanese Regulator Agency, the spike protein of the “…coronavirus gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination…” and that it concentrates “…in spleen, liver, adrenals, and ovaries in high concentrations…”
Causes of Action As Campaign Gets Underway
The lawsuit lays out three Causes of Action against Defendants, the first being the “Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process.” According to Plaintiff, the CMS Mandates violates the liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, including “rights of personal autonomy, self-determination, bodily integrity and the right to reject medical treatment.” With no compelling interest available to Defendants to prove the necessity of mandating the shots, Plaintiff again reminds that the Injections “are simply ineffective against the current variant” and were only somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain.
The Second Cause of Action explains Defendant’s Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments related to the Equal Protection Clause, which “prohibits classifications that affect some groups of citizens differently than others.” By creating two classes of healthcare workers—the injected and uninjected—the CMS Mandate dictates the members of one class (the uninjected) get terminated. These unvaccinated employees cannot advance their careers, provide for their families, or pay their mortgages. On the other hand, the injected get to keep their jobs, advance their careers, and pay their bills. Yet, the situations of these two classes are indistinguishable because vaccinated healthcare workers can become infected and reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and can transmit the disease to fellow workers, patients, and visitors. The lawsuit asserts:
Discriminating against the uninjected controverts the goals of the Equal Protection Clause—i.e., to abolish barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.
Pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.
The Third Cause of Action insists that by issuing the CMS Mandate, Defendants are violating the Constitution of the United States “in that they invade and encroach upon sovereign powers that reside solely in the States and have never been relinquished by the States to the Federal Government.” According to the lawsuit, the CMS Mandate rests upon a general police power asserted by the Federal Government—a power it does not have. Therefore, the CMS Mandate is an ultra vires act taken by the Federal Government because the powers the Federal Government claims to assert belong to and are retained by the States.
With the filing of Griner v. Biden, Dr. Martin’s campaign to expose the illegal corruption behind the pandemic “vaccine” narrative is underway. Emphatically, Martin states that without hesitation, the vaccine needs to be called what it is—a gene therapy injection. Noting a desperate need for “truth in advertising,” he explains:
“If we start calling [the “vaccine”] the “gene therapy injection,” a lot less people will roll up their sleeves—and roll up the sleeves of their children—to actually get the shot. And by the way, if you decide to roll up your own sleeve for an experimental gene therapy, have at it, I don’t care. What I do care about is forcing other people to do it, and coercing other people to do it. And holding their jobs or their livelihoods at gunpoint to get them to do it.”
Del Bigtree: “Less than a third of the total population of the United States of America [has received a booster shot]. [The CDC] boasts that it’s about 44% of the vaccinated… That means, at the very best, there’s a 60% group of people, even that are vaccinated, that don’t listen to the CDC any longer!”
After a request from the FDA to suppress vaccine data for the next 75 years, a 55,000-page set of Pfizer documents has recently been released. Vaccine efficiency aside – why has it been so hard to gain access to data about vaccines that we the public paid for?
#Pfizer #Covid #Vaccines
OTTAWA: The Justice Centre announced today that its legal team has eleven affidavits in the Federal Court lawsuit to strike down the federal government’s mandatory Covid-19 vaccine requirements for air travellers (the “Travel Ban”). The Notice of Application was initially filed on February 1, 2022 behalf of several Canadians from across Canada challenging the Travel Ban on the basis that their Charter rights and freedoms have been infringed.
The main applicant in the case is former Newfoundland Premier, The Honourable A. Brian Peckford. Mr. Peckford is the only surviving drafter and signatory to the 1982 Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In his sworn affidavit, Mr. Peckford states: “What I find perhaps the most disturbing is that the federal government has mandated a two-tiered society where one group of people has benefits while another group is disadvantaged. As a person who has chosen not to receive the new medical treatment, I am all of a sudden treated as an outcast, labelled a “racist” and “misogynist”, and as an undesirable person not fit to be seated with vaccinated people on an airplane … The Covid-19 vaccinated are allowed to travel by airplane and to see their families and the unvaccinated are not. This is not the Canada I know and love, and this type of segregation causes me utmost sadness.”
In October of 2021, the federal government announced that anyone travelling by air, train, or ship, must have taken the requisite number of mRNA Covid shots (currently two).
The travel vaccination mandate has prevented approximately 6 million vaccine-free Canadians (15% of Canada’s population) from travel within Canada and prevents them from flying out of Canada. The evidence filed with the court shows how the Canadians involved in the lawsuit cannot travel to help sick loved ones, cannot get to work, cannot visit family and friends, cannot access health care outside of Canada, cannot take international vacations, and cannot live ordinary lives.
Expert medical evidence now filed with the court ranges from scientific evidence about Covid spread among both vaccinated and unvaccinated; risks associated with taking the new Covid vaccines; vaccine harms such as myocarditis and possible effects on fertility; and the superiority of natural immunity.
The Federal Court has consolidated the Justice Centre action with three other similar cases, brought by other unrelated parties, asking for the travel ban to be ruled unconstitutional. All applicants have asked the Federal Court to hear the case on an expedited basis given the serious infringement on Canadians’ mobility and other rights. The parties have agreed to the following timelines, and hope to have the matter heard in September of this year at the latest:
March 11 – Service of Applicants’ Affidavits and Documentary Exhibits April 25 – Service of Respondent’s Affidavits and Documentary Exhibits May 16 – Completion of cross-examination on Affidavits June 6 – Service and filing of Applicants’ Records June 27 – Service and filing of Respondent’s Record Fall 2022 – Hearing (proposed timeline)
“Canada is the only country in the developed world that bans unvaccinated citizens from air travel,” states Keith Wilson, Q.C., lead counsel on the case for the Justice Centre. Mr. Wilson adds, “Canada’s ban on unvaccinated flying is especially egregious given Canada is the second largest country in the world by landmass and Canadians have a far greater need to use air travel for work, family and health reasons than do the citizens of most other countries.”
“Our experts confirm that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated spread Covid. This means the government’s rationale for the ban on air travel is fatally flawed and there is no justification for the serious infringement on Canadians’ Charter rights,” notes Mr. Wilson.
“Our evidence refutes government claims that infringing the mobility, conscience, security and privacy rights of Canadians is justified,” states Justice Centre lawyer Allison Pejovic.
“Canadians have the right not to be discriminated against, and this Charter challenge seeks to enforce that right,” adds Ms. Pejovic.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is a non-profit national constitutional law organization funded by voluntary donations from concerned Canadians.
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,183,495 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 25,641 deaths and 208,209 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 11, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,183,495 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 11, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 11,728 U.S. deaths reported as of March 11, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 22% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 60% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 556 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 11, including 328 million doses of Pfizer, 209 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
The most recent death involves a 7-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2152560) from Washington who died 13 days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when he went into shock and suffered cardiac arrest. He was unable to be resuscitated and died in the emergency department.
17 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
The most recent deaths involve a 17-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2171083) from Illinois with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who died from cardiac arrest after receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, and 14-year-old boy from Guam (VAERS I.D. 2157944) who died one week after his first dose of Pfizer when he suddenly committed suicide.
The boy’s VAERS report states:
“Sudden suicide one week after the vaccine. Patient was a perfectly happy child. After the vaccine, he became much more tired and achy and lost interest in doing his sports. One week later, without any warning, he hung himself.”
68 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
646 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, with 634 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
162 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 11, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
Moderna asks FDA to authorize 4th dose for adults 18 and up
Moderna on Thursday asked the FDA to amend Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of its COVID vaccine to include a fourth dose for adults 18 and older.
According to The Associated Press, the request is broader than Pfizer’s. Pfizer earlier this week asked the agency to authorize a fourth dose of its COVID vaccine for adults 65 and older.
In a press release, Moderna said the request to include adults over 18 was made “to provide flexibility for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and healthcare providers to determine the appropriate use of an additional booster dose of mRNA-1273, including for those at higher risk of COVID-19 due to age or comorbidities.”
Moderna said its decision to seek FDA approval was based on studies from the U.S. and Israel about the Omicron variant, but didn’t provide further information. Booster doses of Moderna are half the dose of the first and second doses.
Pfizer and BioNTech ask FDA to authorize fourth vaccine dose for older adults Pfizer and BioNTech on Tuesday said they submitted a request to the FDA for EUA of an additional booster dose of their COVID vaccine for adults 65 and older.
The companies’ request was not based on robust, peer-reviewed U.S. data, but on two recent studies from Israel — both published on preprint servers without peer review.
The first study was done in conjunction with Israel’s Ministry of Health and involved a review of 1.1 million health records. The study concluded rates of COVID in those who received a fourth dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine were lower compared to those who received only three doses.
According to the preprint published on medRxiv, since Jan. 2 Israel has been administering a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine only to people over 60 and at-risk populations.
In the second study of Israeli healthcare workers, results showed a fourth dose of either Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccine boosted antibody levels, but neither was effective at preventing infections.
CDC deletes thousands of reported COVID-19 deaths in children
The CDC removed tens of thousands of deaths linked to COVID, including nearly a quarter of deaths it had attributed to those younger than 18, The Epoch Times reported. The change was made on March 15 on its COVID data tracker website.
“Data on deaths were adjusted after resolving a coding logic error. This resulted in decreased death counts across all demographic categories,” the CDC said on the website. The agency also acknowledged COVID death data is not complete.
Before the change, the CDC listed 1,755 deaths in children from COVID, along with 851,000 others, according to Kelley Krohnert, a Georgia resident who tracks the CDC’s updates.
The CDC removed 416 deaths among children and more than 71,000 other reported deaths — arriving at a total of about 780,000.
The CDC’s statistics are frequently cited by physicians and experts when pushing for children to receive COVID vaccines. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director, referred to the tracker’s death total on November 2021 while pushing for an expert panel to advise her agency to recommend vaccination for all children 5 to 11 years old.
Vaccine researcher develops tinnitus 90 minutes after COVID shot, calls for more research
A vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota said he developed tinnitus after receiving his second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine.
Dr. Gregory Poland’s symptoms began 90 minutes after receiving the vaccine. He described the condition as “fairly severe” and “extraordinarily bothersome, interfering with sleep and the ability to concentrate.”
Dr. Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, developed tinnitus after his second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. He is raising questions about this side effect from the vaccine and suggesting more research is needed.https://t.co/9IXhO9P0cv
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) March 16, 2022
According to the National Institutes of Health, tinnitus is a sign that something is wrong with the auditory system. It is commonly described as a ringing in the ears, but it also can sound like roaring, clicking, hissing, or buzzing that accompanies soft, loud or high pitches.
According to the most recent VAERS data released on March 11, 19,851 people have reported developing tinnitus after a COVID vaccine, with 12,027 cases attributed to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
CEO of German health insurer fired after releasing data on underreported COVID vaccine injuries
The CEO of one of Germany’s largest health insurance companies was abruptly fired last month after he released data suggesting German health authorities are significantly underreporting COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
The data, released by Andreas Schofbeck of BKK/ProVita, have since been scrubbed from the company’s website.
Schofbeck, who noticed an unexpected jump in vaccine-related health insurance claims, in February notified the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) — the German equivalent of the CDC — that BKK billing data indicated the PEI was underreporting adverse events to COVID vaccines.
I’m “If these figures are extrapolated to the whole year and to the population in Germany, probably 2.5-3 million people in Germany have received medical treatment for vaccination side effects after Corona vaccination.”
Dr. Dirk Heinrich, chairman of NAV-Virchow Bund, an association of private medical practitioners in Germany, said PEI and BKK would be working closely to examine the billing code data. Heinrich also stated that the conclusions from Schofbeck’s letter are “complete nonsense.”
“The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking something you don’t actually know…One logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely.” – Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
On 11 March 2022, an article was published on The Daily Sceptic website titled “The Real Truth About Viruses”. It was written by Dr Roger Watson, a PhD-qualified registered nurse, who recently retired from the United Kingdom’s higher education sector and now has a part-time position as Academic Dean of Nursing at Southwest Medical University, China. The article was a blatant hit piece against me, typically the domain of the controlled corporate media, so it was a surprise to see it on a website that developed from Lockdown Sceptics. They have the motto “question everything” but apparently you shouldn’t question germ theory and the existence of viruses!
“Question Everything”….except germ theory and viral existence, that’s pure crazy.
Dr Watson appeared to know very little about my work and never attempted to make contact with me before he did his hit and run. We offered him the chance to come on my channel but he declined saying “I am not sure how fruitful a debate with me would be,” perhaps not feeling confident about backing up his claims or perhaps a little shaken by the derision he received in the comments section on the Sceptics website. Much of his article was ad hominem in nature and doesn’t need to be dignified with a response but I will proceed to address his inaccurate scientific claims point by point…
“I would like to hear Duesberg or Sam Bailey explain how haemophiliacs contracted AIDS from blood infusions. Somehow, I think they’ll have a stock response to that one.“ Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
It is unclear why Watson has conflated my views with Peter Duesberg and his sentence will take some unpacking. His reference to Peter is a link to Wikipedia, a known disinformation site, which should raise a red flag for a sceptic or anyone wanting to know more about a topic. Peter does not claim that viruses don’t exist: he is one of the world’s most prominent retrovirologists after all! His position is that the HIV particle exists but that it is a harmless “passenger” virus that does not cause the clinical condition AIDS. I know he outlined the evidence of why haemophiliacs do not become “infected” through blood product transfusions here but cannot otherwise speak for him. My position is that there is no proof of the existence of a retrovirus called HIV and that the particles nominated “HIV” have never been shown to fulfil the defintion of a virus. Thus “HIV” has not been shown to cause AIDS.
In this regard, the biggest influence on both myself and my Virus Mania co-authors has been the work of The Perth Group. Watson fails to define what he means by “haemophiliacs contracted AIDS from blood” but presumably he means that the reason some haemophiliacs develop AIDS is because there is a pathogenic virus that is being transmitted to them via infected blood. (They actually receive factor VIII concentrate from pooled blood donations.) I am unaware of any research demonstrating HIV particles in blood or any human or animal models showing transmission of “infected” blood that then causes a recipient to develop AIDS. In Virus Mania we explain that “HIV” cannot be the explanation for the development of AIDS in haemophiliacs. Increased death rates did correspond to changes such as the introduction of “anti-viral” pharmaceuticals including the highly toxic AZT in “HIV positive” patients. If Watson wants to get serious about claiming that a virus is being transmitted to haemophiliacs and causing AIDS then he should have an attempt at refuting The Perth Group’s 1995 paper “Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their relationship”. In my estimation it is the best I have come across and I would welcome Watson’s critique of what I’ve missed.
“Her views have been debunked regarding the existence of viruses but, possibly unknown to many who are unwilling to wade into the depths and breadths of her views, she denies germ theory completely.” Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson doesn’t let his readers know how he established I’ve been “debunked” or by who. Instead he provides a link to a small blog post written by a University of Waikato employee and Pfizer BioNTech injection enthusiast Alison Campbell. Campbell set up the blog “as a resource for secondary school biology teachers preparing students for Scholarship Biology examinations” which is probably not the level Watson should be aiming for in this debate. If he checked Campbell’s usual publications he would have realised that she has no experience in virology or medical matters. In fact, when we reached out to her she quickly retreated and would not even agree to a phone call. Watson follows in the footsteps of our state-sponsored mainstream media who also used this largely ad hominem rant as “evidence” against me. I’ve already responded to Campbell and the MSM’s little foray into virology – unfortunately, like Watson, they are limited to repeating the claims of the virologists on face value.
I’m not sure why my views on germ theory would be “unknown” to my viewers as I openly point out that I do not believe it is satisfactory model. Virus Mania is largely dedicated to dismantling germ theory and my views are closest to that of “terrain theory”. I outline why I’m in the terrain camp in much of my work, including in my video “Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory”. For those not familiar with Virus Mania, a window into the book can be found in this short essay I wrote with my co-authors.
“This essay is prompted by the most recent video from Sam Bailey: The Truth About Viruses published on March 9th 2022. She is to be congratulated for its brevity – it is only 17 minutes long – but it is presented in a typically sneering, sarcastic and patronising manner.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson seems to completely miss that this video is a light-hearted and satirical take on some of the historical claims of the virologists. It was designed to engage a wider audience with material that can be a boring subject for many. If he wanted to have a serious discussion about a particular topic then he could have easily accessed my other published work or contacted me to fill in any gaps.
“It is hard to understand how Sam Bailey arrives at her views and it is not necessary to be a virus denier to be highly critical of the way the pandemic was managed.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson has ignored the vast majority of my work and never bothered to converse with me so perhaps it is not surprising that he is confused. I’m not sure why anyone would decide to be a “virus denier” because they needed to criticise “pandemic” management or how this is relevant to his argument. In fact, it’s disingenuous to even suggest such a modus operandi and it slumps into the argument of the destitute.
“After all, anti (Covid) ‘vaxxer’ supreme, Dr. Mike Yeadon made it clear in his excellent interview with Neil Oliver on GB News that he believes a unique virus exists. The HART Group led by Dr. John Lee, who have mounted the most credible and well-informed responses to the UK lockdown, is not stocked with virus deniers.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson has not provided any evidence for the existence of viruses here: his argument seems to be that other people believe in viruses, therefore viruses exist. Some people also believe in the tooth fairy but that would not affect my own investigations into the topic. Appeal to common opinion is a type of faulty reasoning that also plagues the medical community. Heretics like myself are prepared to examine the evidence for ourselves and reach our own conclusions, not parrot those of others. We are not motivated by the number of people who agree with us and our publications are not restricted by governments, institutions, or colleagues. Note to Dr Watson: in all the virology textbooks I’ve looked at, the method of proving the existence of a virus does not include ‘beliefs held by Dr Mike Yeadon’. (For the record: I have no problem with Dr Yeadon, we just have different thoughts on the existence of viruses.)
“It is hard to know where to start but, since she denies germ theory itself – as properly understood – I will start here with Dr Bailey’s views on whether anything exists that can cause an infection and spread between people. Louis Pasteur comes in for criticism by Bailey in her Delingpod interview. I am sure Pasteur was not perfect but he did knock the theory of spontaneous generation a body blow with his swan neck flask experiment.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
I’m unsure what Watson means by “properly understood” germ theory. My investigations into germ theory, which are dealt with in Virus Mania and videos such as “Koch’s Postulates: Germ School Dropout,” have informed me that the theory is fatally flawed. I have looked into Koch’s original work and he did not fulfil his own postulates correctly. His often uncontrolled experiments failed to take into account the traumatic effects of his procedures on animals or consider other factors that were making them ill. With regards to “infection” spreading between people, it seems that clinical experiments have struggled to demonstrated this phenomenon. Perhaps the most spectacular failure has been the inability to ever demonstrate transmission of influenza, as I outlined in this video here and ViroLIEgy’s Mike Stone detailed here. If Watson wants to send me a paper that proves the concept of microbes transmitting between humans to make them ill, then I would be happy to critique it. Pasteur’s work has been exposed as largely fraudulent, but it is unclear why Watson is bringing in his spontaneous generation and swan neck flask experiments and how that relates to anything I’ve published. Perhaps he thought terrain theory was claiming that microbes appear on the basis of spontaneous generation?
“Dr. Bailey has batted the theory of disease back into the 19th Century. Edward Jenner was another scoundrel according to Bailey and, while his experiments would not have passed muster with an NHS ethics committee, you can see where Bailey is going and leading her disciples into the realm of the ‘anti-vaxxers’, a topic which I will not explore here.“ Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson may be shocked to know that I’m not the only one who has questioned the alleged contributions Jenner has made to human health through the practice of vaccination. I would also suggest he reads the book Dissolving Illusions, or at least examine the charts that Dr Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk have put together, if he believes that the smallpox vaccine or any other vaccine has been shown to be of benefit to the public.
The realm of “anti-vaxxers” and their bloody inconvenient, irrefutable data!
I am up front about my position on vaccines as it is clearly stated on my website FAQs that, “I am not ‘anti-vaccination’ in the sense that I don’t wish to tell other people what to do with their bodies. I’m always happy to consider new evidence, but for me personally, I don’t believe any current vaccine can provide health benefits for myself or my loved ones.” It is unclear to me why Watson thinks I am “leading disciples” into any realm. If he thinks he has sound evidence that vaccines lead to better health outcomes then he is welcome to provide it – our Virus Mania team has sought such data from major institutions such as the Robert Koch Institute for many years and they have been unable to provide it.
“She mentions, in passing, the famous TMV (tobacco mosaic virus) in a ‘that’s all very well’ kind of way. But the fact is that the TMV has been sufficiently purified for its structure to be studied by scanning electron microscopy; and that represents a very high level of both isolation and purity. A plant virus it may be, with no animal equivalent, but it is the case that disproves, in a Popperian way, the argument often repeated by the virus deniers that ‘no virus has ever been purified’. Some have been sufficiently purified for study by X-ray crystallography and that represents an extremely high level of purification.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
It’s not at all convincing in his article that Watson knows the difference between isolation and purification. He refers to a microscopy study which purports to show TMV. We may need to remind Watson that a virus is a tiny replication-competent, intracellular parasite that can infect a host and pass onto other hosts. Apart from images of tiny particles, there is nowhere in the paper he cites that any of these key properties are demonstrated. I have explained in my video “Electron Microscopy and Unidentified “Viral” Objects” the limitations of the technique and why particles that appear amongst dead tissue cannot be classified as “viruses” without further experimental steps. His reference to an x-ray crystallography paper is likewise useless. Plenty of particles can be purified Dr Watson – the issue is that they need to be shown to be viruses. In any case, you’re in for a treat as I currently have a video in production exposing the Tobacco Mosaic “Virus” story going back to Ivanovsky’s unscientific experiments considered by some to be the beginning of virology.
“But the fact is that the existence of any virus is triangulated by an array of increasingly sophisticated laboratory techniques whereby theories may be tested, cultures grown, and infectivity demonstrated. In fact, a great many viruses have been purified, often against the odds.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Triangulation? The process of measuring distances and determining locations. Watson goes next-level cunning with his conflations to make virology look respectable again! If Watson looked at all my publications he would see that I am familiar with the historical techniques, which failed to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses and how they have morphed into modern molecular detection techniques to keep the virus paradigm alive. His citation is “Virus Purification” techniques in the Encyclopedia of Virology (Fourth Edition), 2021 – I have an e-copy of this publication and am familiar with the described methods. However, Watson needs to show his hand and let us know which particles he thinks have been purified and demonstrated to be “viruses” instead of pointing at a textbook.
Dr Watson: stop keeping us in suspense and please publish your list of viruses that were purified “against the odds” with their proofs.
“The virus deniers trot out the Koch’s postulates argument repeatedly, even though Koch’s postulates were simply one way – long before the advent of amino acid and nucleotide sequencing methods – of demonstrating the presence of a bacterium. Koch’s postulates were never intended to be applied to viruses – the existence of which were not known when Koch postulated.”
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson appears completely confused about Koch’s Postulates which relate to establishing a causative relationship between a microbe and a particular disease, and conflates it with “demonstrating the presence of a bacterium”. The postulates were designed to be applied to all microbes, but as I have stated, my investigations indicate that Koch’s Postulates have never been fulfilled and there is no sound basis to germ theory: bacteria, fungi and postulated “viruses” are not the causal agents of disease. And it doesn’t matter what nucleotide sequences or proteins you discover Dr Watson, you still need to establish where they come from – are you sure the virologists establish this or even do “sequencing”? (See below).
“The original SARS, which almost certainly jumped species, is very unusual for that very reason and, for example, bird flu does not infect humans. The jury remains out on whether SARS-CoV-2, which possibly jumped species, did so spontaneously or after a ‘gain of function’ nudge.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Interestingly for a “sceptic”, Watson espouses most of the virology industry’s stories about viruses jumping species. Can he point to the investigations he performed to conclude something that hasn’t been shown to exist “almost certainly jumped species”? We deal with these highly speculative and sometimes baseless claims in Virus Mania and I covered the original “SARS” (and “species jumping”) in another of my videos banned by Big Tech but still available here. There is a fatal flaw regarding gain of function research with “viruses” when the pathogens themselves have not been shown to exist, as I have pointed out in more videos banned by Big Tech but still available here and here. Dr Stefan Lanka has also outlined the fallacies of “bio-weapons,” including fabricated “viruses” and how they have been used to drive fear into the public for many decades.
“I have corresponded with Siouxsie Wiles, a major debunker of the Koch’s postulates argument, at Auckland University in New Zealand over this point and over the point regarding ‘purification’ of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson makes an appeal to “authority” here, which was the same mistake made by Steve Kirsch when he clumsily waded into the issue of the existence of “SARS-CoV-2” in January 2022. My husband Dr Mark Bailey has previously outlined why Kirsch shouldn’t rely on such “experts”. Like Watson, Kirsch started off all guns blazing against the “virus deniers”. Like Watson, Kirsch rapidly retreated when the Baileys, Dr Tom Cowan, Dr Andy Kaufman, and Dr Stefan Lanka all offered to participate in a live debate with his chosen “experts”. It is odd that our “sceptic” Watson corresponds with Wiles as she is heavily promoted by the NZ government and advised our country that “the world is on fire” and we should “all behave as they [the government] are asking us to behave” in March 2020.
“If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.“
William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas
She is notorious for avoiding open scientific discussions and even has a lengthy automated email reply excusing herself from such pursuits. Incidentally, in February 2022, a state-sponsored media platform was found guilty of publishing one of her false claims. Watson has referred to an article by Wiles which is a case of the blind leading the naked. In the article she provides no explanation as to how disease causation is satisfied with viruses when it is conveniently claims there are no suitable clinical experiments available. She tries to distract the reader with Falkow’s molecular postulates, and fails to inform her readers that River’s postulates were designed specifically for viruses but have not even been close to being fulfilled for SARS-CoV-2 – the first problem being that no one can show it exists. There is certainly nowhere in her article that demonstrates she can prove the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus, only excuses as to why direct proofs are lacking. I have previously addressed her false claims surrounding the application of the PCR in another video banned by Big Tech after several hundred thousand views, but still available here. New Zealanders have endured two years of state-sponsored nonsense from Wiles, who is paraded by the MSM as a go to “expert”. I’m willing to bet that a live debate with Watson & Wiles on one side and the Baileys on the other would be very revealing.
“It transpires that the purification of the novel coronavirus argument is a straw dog created by the viral deniers. In fact, nobody has claimed that it has been purified. However, it has been ‘isolated’, which is a different concept whereby studies are carried out to check it is there.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
If Watson hasn’t already indicated that he is bringing his pocketknife into a gunfight, then this is where his pocketknife falls to the floor. I suspect he didn’t know that I have already analysed Vincent Racaniello’s presentation he refers to in this video (banned by Big Tech of course). It is not clear that he even listened to Racaniello’s words: if the virologists don’t have a specific defintion of “isolation” what does Watson think it means? Can he see a problem when Racaniello says “an isolate is a virus that we have isolated…” or has he been swept up in their circular reasoning? The problem of what “isolation” means is the pivotal issue with regards to proving the existence of viruses and the virologists have a habit of playing fast and loose. As stated by The Perth Group in 2017: “The fact is that in virology, while purification retains its everyday meaning, “isolation” is an expediential term virologists assign to data they claim are proof a particular virus exists.” Watson instead chooses to cheerlead the virologists denigration of the English language: if their use of the word ‘isolation’ isn’t what everyone thinks it is, then it’s useless as a method of providing proof that a particle is a virus.
Watson, however, gives the thumbs up to ‘isolate = particles + every other bit of junk in a specimen’, perhaps oblivious to the deception of the virologists.
“According to Siouxsie Wiles, the virus has been found in hundreds of disparate samples and subsequently sequenced. The viral deniers point to the way the sequence was merely pieced together in the early stages, thus proposing a hoax. But this is how viruses are sequenced.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
How on earth this made it past the Daily Sceptic editors is a mystery to me. For his source of “truth” Watson has cited “fact-checking” organisations that are supported by Big Tech, and have financial conflicts of interest with Big Pharma. If it is not apparent at this stage of the “pandemic” that these organisations have been consistently misleading the public since day one then it is difficult to believe that he really is a “sceptic”. The fraudulent invention of the “SARS-CoV-2 genome” by Fan Wu’s lab has been exposed by Stefan Lanka’s team and it was even worse than the usual imaginary “viral genome” assembly circus. The ViroLIEgy website has one of the best collections on the many assumptions and biases involved in “genome” creation, from the collection of the crude specimen through to the hypothetical model constructed by computer software. And with regards to “viruses”, we do not call it a “hoax”, we call it fraud. “Viruses” are not really “sequenced” as you might think Dr Watson (see below).
“In any case, as explained to me by Siouxsie Wiles, it is not necessary to purify the coronavirus and as Dr. Ros Jones says in her Unity News Network interview with David Clews, this is not how it is done; the virus is cultured. This is about as close to Koch’s postulates as you could get: grow the purported virus in a cellular culture and identify it by sequencing. Introduce what you have to some other cultured cells alongside a control culture. If the one with the purported virus shows subsequent evidence for the presence of the virus and the other does not, that is about as watertight an experiment as I can think of.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson has a great deal of faith in Wiles and her reassurances that purification is “not necessary” and again seems to be confused about what Koch’s Postulates is all about. He describes cell culture experiments and what he believes is “identification” of a virus. How does he know there would be a new virus in there? Apparently, by “sequencing” (I’m not sure he understands what they are actually doing – see next point.) And what does he mean by a “control culture”? Official Information Act requests have exposed that the virologists do not do valid control experiments and this has been a problem ever since Enders and Peebles started the “virus” culture technique in the 1950s. Lack of valid controls = unscientific. I can only suggest to Watson that he digs a little deeper and examines the methodology of the papers rather than simply browse their headlines.
“Bailey and co. try to debunk all the methods that are used in virology and to deny the whole field of laboratory science. The only possible retort can be that no method is perfect, and experiments often fail to show what is being hypothesised. That is an argument for rather than against science, which constantly tries to improve its methods. I recall a whole room being dedicated to a huge amino acid sequencer when I was a PhD student. Now, amino acid sequencing can be done on a microchip.”
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
This is so full of non sequiturs that perhaps the best advice to Watson is that he needs an editor to help him communicate what he is trying to say to his readers. He should be able to clearly see my pro-science position in the video “Science vs Dogma”. My publications analysing virology have clearly pointed out that much of it involves uncontrolled experiments and thus cannot be claimed to be scientific. He refers to Karl Popper earlier in his article but fails to see that Popper would be horrified by the reasoning used by many virologists. How is an in silico “viral genome” that is created de novo from an unpurified specimen, that has been templated to another “viral genome” which was invented in the same way, falsifiable? How is a PCR result that “diagnoses” a disease on the basis that a positive result means you have the disease, falsifiable? I also suspect he is confusing complete in silico assembly of hypothetical “viral genomes” with actual physical sequencing, such as via the Sanger method, which he may have seen when he was a student. Computer games are indeed very seductive, particularly for kids but sometimes for adults too.
“I have had Covid, despite the remarkable claims by my virus denying friends to the contrary. How do I know I had it: it hit me like an express train; I felt terrible for two days and slept for 29 of 48 hours, rather like the flu. My taste was not lost but my sense of smell became incredibly deranged, not something that I had experienced after many bouts of flu in my 66 years.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watson appears to include this story about his bout of illness as evidence that viruses must exist. Despite it being another non sequitur, what is his definition of “COVID”? Virus Mania co-author Dr Claus Köhnlein pointed out in 2020 that it was nothing more than an imaginary clinical condition based on a new PCR “test” with no demonstrated clinical diagnostic capability. His interview in German reached over 1 million viewers before it was quickly shut down and his interview in English with me on Youtube had 125,000 views when it was shut down. It is still available here. I produced another popular video in 2020, “What Is A Covid-19 Case?” which outlines why “COVID” is a meaningless construct – which was also banned by Big Tech. In Dr Watson’s view how do we define a case: does a person dying in intensive care and an elite athlete running a marathon both have “COVID-19”? According to the WHO they should both be counted as equal “confirmed” cases if a PCR result is positive.
“When I felt worst, I reluctantly took a lateral flow test (LFT). This showed up positive almost instantly and with a thick test line. As I felt better the test – which as it uses antibodies is highly specific but not very sensitive – took longer to show and the line became fainter. Of course, the virus deniers have this one covered under the rubric that immunology is also bogus, antibodies are not at all specific and will pick up anything. My ‘gotcha’ to this is: if I run a pregnancy test which uses antibodies to detect human chorionic gonadotropin, will it show me I am pregnant?“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
It is unclear if Watson is claiming that his lateral flow test proves the existence of viruses or “COVID” or both. What does he think the test is for? Something unique to the postulated “CoV” particle or a specific bodily process? Oh dear, we are back at square one! I have dealt with “COVID” LFTs previously and they are as equally unsuitable as the PCR with regards to clinical diagnostics and proving virus existence. With the rest of his claims, I’m not aware of who said antibodies pick up “anything” and it certainly wasn’t me. The issue surrounds assigning meaning to various proteins that can be detected through in vitro chemical reactions compared to what this informs us about health in real life. This topic has been outlined in Virus Mania and I also cover it in some of my other videos. His “gotcha” with regards to human chorionic gonadotropin has nothing to do with postulated viruses and related “immunology”. β-hCG is a specific glycoprotein of known composition and provenance that has been clinically validated for diagnosing pregnancy and can be easily compared to a “gold standard”: a foetal ultrasound scan (or the actual baby). As per many of Watson’s attempts, it’s another own goal. I can also suggest to him that if he has a positive result on a pregnancy test, as a man he’s unlikely to be pregnant and should be checked for cancer.
“The virus deniers who tend to promote their views on increasingly bizarre websites and within such a deafening echo chamber that they are completely unable to hear, yet alone contemplate, alternative views. They certainly don’t listen.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
What are these “bizarre” websites that he is referring to and what’s wrong with bizarre anyway? The orthodoxy doesn’t like being challenged Dr Watson. If they played like real scientists they’d welcome views that challenge their comfy status quo and we could all go on the same URLs. It may disturb Watson but the appetite for the content we produce seems very healthy. Our audience size is mostly restricted by Big Tech censorship and I’m sure he doesn’t agree with such interference with free speech. However, despite my Youtube channel being heavily suppressed, with millions of views being removed and people informing me that my videos and articles can’t be shared on platforms such as Facebook, the audience still grows every week. Mike Stone recently put together a list of websites that challenge the virus paradigm – I am in regular contact with many of these doctors, scientists and journalists and none have indicated that lack of demand is a problem. Last year, Mark and Dr John Bevan-Smith published their essay “The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity”. Not only do they explain that there is no pathogen termed “SARS-CoV-2” but also why everyone should be sceptical about everything the virologists have ever claimed. They were tracking the viewership across various internet platforms for a few months before they gave up. By that stage it had reached about 250,000 people – I would say that’s a few hundred times more than most virologists are reaching with their papers. Watson’s “deafening echo chamber” may turn out to be his own case of tinnitus…
Postscript
Perhaps Dr Watson’s annoyance stems from the fact that because people get sick and die, he thinks it is unsporting to question the methods of the hard-working virologists? They are the white knights, so if we go against them – it means we must be on the wrong side. I don’t have all the answers as to why people get sick but the extensive research I’ve done informs me that pathogenic “viruses” do not seem to exist and are not the cause of disease. The tree of virology has borne no fruit for humanity unless that fruit is a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry that targets enemies that have not been shown to exist. In the last two years, virology and germ theory have brought the planet to its knees, manifesting in anti-humanity measures such as face masks, stripping of civil rights, and mandated “vaccines”. For some of us, germ theory refuted itself at its inception and we see it for what it is: a tragic misunderstanding of nature, now used as propaganda in a perpetual phoney war, like something out of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Dr Watson can call us whatever names he likes – we see the universe in a different light and it is a light we choose to walk in. Perhaps he’ll take a stroll with us some day?
“There are three steps in the revelation of any truth: in the first, it is ridiculed; in the second, it is resisted; in the third, it is considered self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,168,894 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 25,158 deaths and 203,888 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 4, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,168,894 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 4, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 11,505 U.S. deaths reported as of March 4, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 22% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 60% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 554 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 4, including 327 million doses of Pfizer, 209 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 4, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 7-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2152560) from Washington who died 13 days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when he went into shock and suffered cardiac arrest. He was unable to be resuscitated and died in the emergency department.
17 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
The most recent death involves a 14-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2148498) who experienced a cerebral aneurysm leading to death one day after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
69 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
650 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 631 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
161 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 4, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
CDC study concludes COVID vaccine adverse events ‘mild’
A study funded by the CDC and published Monday in The Lancet concluded most COVID vaccine-related adverse events reported during the first six months of the rollout in the U.S were “mild and short in duration,” despite thousands of deaths reported to VAERS.
For the study, researchers analyzed data captured between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 14, 2021, by VAERS and v-safe, both of which are overseen by the CDC. Nearly 300 million doses of COVID vaccines were administered during the study period.
The authors found that of the 340,522 adverse events reported to VAERS, 27,023 (8%) were serious, 4,496 were deaths. The authors said the cause of the increased reporting of deaths during the first few days after vaccination might represent “reporting bias.”
The authors suggested that deaths occurring soon after vaccination were more likely to be reported than deaths that occurred later. This, they believe, is why the number of deaths asymptotically approaches zero as more time elapses since vaccination.
Jessica Rose, Ph.D., attempted to duplicate the Lancet authors’ findings through her independent analysis of the VAERS data. Despite filtering the database using three different date stamps, Rose was unable to duplicate the Lancet study’s results.
Florida surgeon general breaks with CDC, recommends against shots for healthy kids
Florida’s surgeon general on Monday said he will issue guidance formally recommending against COVID vaccines for healthy children. Florida is the first state to break with official guidance from the CDC, which recommends all children over age 5 get the vaccine.
Dr. Joseph Ladapo made the announcement at a roundtable, hosted by Gov. Ron DeSantis, featuring physicians and other medical experts who criticized CDC and government policies, including mask mandates and lockdowns, which they said were ineffective and harmful.
Ladapo and DeSantis said the new guidance had to do with lingering questions about the vaccines’ potential health risks for young people and the fact that children are in a low-risk category for severe COVID.
COVID vaccines may be enhancing disease
COVID vaccines may be causing enhanced disease because they target an old version of the coronavirus, Dr. Robert Malone told the Epoch Times in a recent interview.
“The data are showing that vaccination can actually increase the risk of being infected with the Omicron version of this virus,” Malone said, referring to how in some areas, including Scotland and New Zealand, patients hospitalized with COVID are more likely to have received a COVID vaccine.
U.S. drug regulators identified vaccine-associated enhanced diseases (VAED) as an “important potential risk” of COVID vaccines, along with enhanced respiratory disease.
Some adverse events reported following COVID vaccination “could indicate” VAED, according to a CDC team.
VAED refers to disease “resulting from infection in individuals primed with non-protective immune responses against the respective wild-type viruses,” researchers said last year.
“Given that these enhanced responses are triggered by failed attempts to control the infecting virus, VAED typically presents with symptoms related to the target organ of the infection pathogen,” they added.
Vaccine researcher develops tinnitus after COVID shot, calls for further study
Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, developed life-altering tinnitus, or ringing in the ear, after receiving his second dose of a COVID vaccine.
“It was like someone suddenly blew a dog whistle in my ear,” Poland told MedPage Today. “It has been pretty much unrelenting.”
Poland then received a booster, after which his tinnitus briefly disappeared but then returned at a slightly higher pitch. Poland realized his life may never be the same and says he has received emails from people across the world struggling with the same condition to the point they’re considering taking their own lives.
Poland, who said he supports COVID vaccines, believes there may be tens of thousands of people affected in the U.S. and is calling for more research to be done to provide help to people desperate for relief.
Michigan woman files claim over mom’s COVID vaccine-related death
Tatum Strieter-Byron is asking the federal government to compensate her for the death in April of her mother Sandra Jacobs. An autopsy confirmed Jacobs died from a blood-clotting disorder caused by J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Strieter-Byron received confirmation Monday her claim to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) had been received. The program was established to give pharmaceutical companies blanket liability protection from harm caused by their COVID vaccines.
In 2020, the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act and declared COVID-19 a public health emergency, providing J&J other COVID vaccine makers immunity from lawsuits.
The only exception under the PREP Act is if a plaintiff can prove a vaccine-related death or serious physical injury was caused by “willful misconduct.” The protections, unless amended or rescinded, extend through Oct. 1, 2024.
Claims to the CICP must be made within one year of the date the vaccine was received.
Jacobs, 60, received the single-shot vaccine at a CVS pharmacy on April 8, 2021, just five days before federal health agencies temporarily paused the vaccine to examine numerous reports of a serious and potentially fatal blood-clotting disorder.
Jacobs died on April 21 of “complications of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” a type of stroke caused by the vaccine.
Dr. José Luis Sevillano is conducting research based on the observation and evolution of different possible unidentified life forms in the most detailed way possible.
In a recent program, he identified some structures that look like long leaves and others that are more vermiform and frightening.
Orwell City brings Dr. Sevillano’s observations and theories to English.
Transcript:
Dr. Sevillano: These are the ones I was telling you about. They’re all of this kind and look alike. And I don’t know if it’s contamination or something else. I don’t know if they’re plants or something else. That’s why I was saying that if there’s someone who’s an expert in these things, please tell me.
Ricardo Delgado: A botanical expert. A botanist.
Dr. Sevillano: Exactly. And there are many of them. I have observed this in the first sample that I took, and I have left it to dry. Let’s see if it dries completely. But these things have appeared so far. This doesn’t look like pollen or anything like that. So I wondered, is this contamination or what? I have my doubts about this, but there it is. Just in case, I’ll confirm it for you. Look at the shape of it. And look, this is what makes me suspect that the famous carbon deposits are releasing that sort of tube-like…
Ricardo Delgado: Filaments?
Dr. Sevillano: Filaments or I don’t know what is born from them. And that’s why I took the picture because I said I thought: “Couldn’t all this come out of the charcoals and then come to life? Or what’s that?”
There are more pictures, see? Another one again. That one looks like… These are… Anyway, I’ll confirm it when I see I look at tonight’s sample again. These are from the first sample. These things have been popping up over the last few of the last few days.
I have to confirm if this is contamination or something else that comes up after a few days in the sample.
Ricardo Delgado: My goodness.
Dr. Sevillano: It looks like a plant, right? Like it’s some kind of plant. You can see that when you leave it there on its side. And now, this is from the new sample that I have with the coverslip, on the drop. So, there’s no possibility of contamination there.
This is one of the famous microchips. This is a photo at 10X. And the previous one was at 40X. Look at this… 40X. So you can see that this previous structure isn’t crystal of any kind. Neither of sucrose. It’s not a crystal. It’s a plate of the kind we’ve already seen. A microchip or what has also been seen as a nanochip.
Ricardo Delgado: Look at that.
Dr. Sevillano: See? See the indentations that form there? That’s so you can see the self-assembly.
Ricardo Delgado: Unbelievable. All of this is seen in Pfizer’s vaccine.
Dr. Sevillano: Another one of the indentations. You can see that from a distance it looks like a crystal, maybe, but up close you realize that it’s nanotechnology. This is a strange structure that I have seen that was shaped like a pyramid with several… It’s very strange. And I took a picture of it. I don’t know exactly what that is.
Ricardo Delgado: Another one.
Dr. Sevillano: It’s another microchip. And this is something else. A ribbon that in the enlargement loops around. I took the screenshot of the two ends because then it kind of loops around, and it looks like it could make a… This isn’t a droplet, but it’s the ends extending.
Ricardo Delgado: Yes.
Dr. Sevillano: That’s where I took the starting photo because it was so big that I couldn’t capture it all in the same capture. And there is another one of the supposed plants. I’m sure it’s not contamination because I’ve made from this new sample that’s covered with a coverslip on the slide. Here is another one of these famous plants, like the ones I showed you the other days. That one. And now comes the most frightening one. This is a small one.
And then the next one and the one after that are the scariest ones I’ve ever seen. There you see it. This has appeared the day after I made the sample. I prepared it last night. And this afternoon, looking through the microscope, I spotted it. That hasn’t grown, but it was already in the drop. Here it is seen with less magnification. From far away. That’s seen at 10X. And then there’s another one. Let’s see if we can see another. That one is terrifying. That’s seen at 40X.
Ricardo Delgado: This one.
Dr. Sevillano:Yes. And now you’ll see it from far away. It’s too big too. There you can see the folds that make those… I don’t know if they’re leaves or what the heck is that. And now you’ll see it from far away. Horrible.
Ricardo Delgado: There.
Dr. Sevillano: That’s it.
Ricardo Delgado: Holy crap!
Dr. Sevillano: Those aren’t microchips, you know. That’s something else. So if people complain about things happening to them, how do they want nothing to happen? How do you want nothing to happen?
So far we’ve identified graphene, a microchip, they can go nanochips, this thing, what I showed you at the beginning, which is that sort of thing that looks like… I don’t even know what that is. We’re going to consider like that was contamination, but this thing that you just saw isn’t contamination for sure. I’m sure it’s not because I covered the sample as soon as I prepared it to avoid contamination. And that’s protected. The first thing you’ve seen looks to me like it’s no contamination. But until I see how this drop evolves now, I can’t guarantee it. I’ll be monitoring to see if the same shape appears, because those little ones that we saw at the beginning, I have the feeling that they’re also going to appear over time.
They confess: they had no virus when they concocted the test for the virus; they “contrived” a model by pretending to find what they wanted to find; it’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy
This is the con and the crime that drove millions of lives, and economies, into ruin
Quiz: If an agency of the federal government revealed they had no basis for constructing a diagnostic test that was used on millions of people; but the test was the cornerstone of a national lockdown; and the lockdown drove the economy off a cliff; and destroyed millions of lives; however, NOW, that agency says, they DO have a basis for the test; would you buy what they’re selling?
If your answer is yes, you’re in good company; the company I call Blind, Ignorant, Denialist, Hoaxing Journalists.
The CDC issued a document that bulges with devastating admissions.
“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”
Many people believe this means the CDC is giving up on the PCR test as a means of “detecting the virus.” The CDC isn’t saying that at all.
They’re saying the PCR technology will continue to be used, but they’re replacing what the test is looking FOR with a better “reference sample.” A better marker. A better target. A better piece of RNA supposedly derived from SARS-CoV-2.
CDC/FDA are confessing there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test which has been used to detect the virus, starting in February of 2020—right up to this minute.
In other words, the millions and millions of “COVID cases” based on the PCR test in use are all suspect. Actually, that statement is too generous. Every test result of every PCR test should be thrown out.
“During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”
Translation: We, at the CDC, did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when we concocted the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. Yes, it’s unbelievable, right? And that’s the test we’ve been using all along. So we CONTRIVED samples of the virus. We fabricated. We lied. We made up (invented) synthetic gene sequences and we SAID these sequences HAD TO BE close to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, without having the faintest idea of what we were doing, because, again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. We had no proof THERE WAS something called SARS-CoV-2.
This amazing FDA document goes to say the Agency has granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the (fake) pandemic. 59. And, “…it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”
Translation: Each of the 59 different PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 told different lies and concocted different fabrications about the genetic makeup of the virus—the virus we didn’t have. Obviously, then, these tests would give unreliable results. THE PCR TESTS USED CONTRIVED SPECIMENS OF THE VIRUS WE DIDN’T HAVE.
BUT, don’t worry, be happy, because NOW, the CDC and the FDA say, they really do have actual virus samples of SARS-CoV-2 from patients; they have better targets for the PCR test, and labs should start gearing up for the new and improved tests.
In other words, they were lying THEN, but they’re not lying NOW. They were “contriving,” but now they’re telling the truth.
If you believe that, I have Fountain of Youth water for sale, extracted from the lead-contaminated system of Flint, Michigan.
Here, once again, I report virology’s version of “we isolated the virus”:
They have a soup they make in their labs.
This soup contains human and monkey cells, toxic chemicals and drugs, and all sorts of other random genetic material. Because the cells start to die, the researchers ASSUME a bit of mucus from a patient they dropped in the soup is doing the killing, and THE VIRUS must be the killer agent in the mucus.
This assumption is entirely unwarranted. The drugs and chemicals could be doing the cell-killing, and the researchers are also starving the cells of vital nutrients, and that starvation could kill the cells.
There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup, or that it is doing the cell-killing, or that it exists.
Yet the researchers call cell-death “isolation of the virus.”
To say this is a non-sequitur is a vast understatement. In their universe, “We assume, without proof, we have the virus buried in a soup in a dish in the lab” equals, “We’ve separated the virus from all surrounding material.”
Virology equals “how to spread bullshit for a living and scare the world.” Other than that, it’s perfect.
As the news cycle continues to focus on the Ukraine situation, the FDA complied with a court order to begin releasing 55,000 pages of Pfizer data per month that was used to authorize their COVID-19 vaccine produced with BioNTech, with the first batch quietly released yesterday, March 1st.
There are 150 documents that the public can now download here.
One of the documents released was the “Prescription Drug User Fee Payment” that BioNTech paid to the FDA on 4/20/2021 for the “COMIRNATY COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine” which the FDA subsequently approved in August of 2021.
That “Prescription Drug User Fee Payment” was $2,875,842.00. (Source.)
Another interesting document I found was the “EXTERNAL DATA MONITORING COMMITTEE” found here.
Here is the stated purpose of this “External Data Monitoring Committee”:
This External Data Monitoring Committee (E-DMC) (hereafter referred to as “the committee”) is a single, external, independent, expert advisory group established to oversee safety and efficacy data from the BNT162 Vaccine Program. The primary rationale for establishing the committee is to make certain that appropriate external safeguards are in place to help ensure the safety of subjects and to maintain scientific rigor and study integrity while the trial is on-going.
The committee will review accumulating safety data across all studies, as well as efficacy data in the Phase 2/3 portion of the C4591001 study. The committee will advise Pfizer regarding the safety of current participants and those yet to be recruited, as well as the continuing scientific validity of the trial. In addition to safety review by the committee, qualified Pfizer personnel will review safety data as specified in the safety surveillance review plan and will inform the committee of significant findings. Efficacy data from the C4591001 study will be available to the committee when there is a planned interim analysis of efficacy or if this is considered necessary to conduct a risk-benefit assessment.
And to make sure that this Committee is doing their job properly to ensure “the safety of subjects and to maintain scientific rigor,” who at the FDA is responsible to make sure this happens?
Well, that would be no one. Pfizer is the one who was responsible, and BioNTech funded it.
“Pfizer is responsible for conducting this study. BioNTech is the regulatory sponsor of this study.”
The committee members are to be free from “conflicts of interest.”
The committee members will complete a CT22-GSOP-RF01 Independent Oversight Committee Member Conflict of Interest Form. Committee members should be free of apparent significant conflicts of interest. Any potential conflict of interest that develops during a member’s tenure on the committee must be disclosed by the committee member.
And who at the FDA is responsible for assuring that this committee who is overseeing “safety and efficacy data” is free from conflicts of interest?
Well, that would be no one. Again, Pfizer is responsible for that.
“Pfizer will determine if any potential conflict requires termination of committee membership.”
The question that then begs to be answered here is, what role did the FDA play, if any, in the “external” monitoring of the data to ensure integrity and safety of a new vaccine about to be injected into hundreds of millions people in the U.S.?
It would appear that all they did was rubber stamp the process that was completely managed by Pfizer, and funded by BioNTech.
Here are the members of the “External Data Monitoring Committee” that apparently were chosen by Pfizer, monitored by Pfizer, and investigated by Pfizer to make sure they were doing their job and that there were no “conflicts of interest.”
The other interesting thing this document reveals is that a significant number of people compiling the data for this committee to review were located in China.
Rong Zhang: Senior Statistical Programming Lead
4/F, Building 3, Lotus Business Park, Lane
60, Naxian Road,
Pudong ZhangJiang Hi-tech. Park, Shanghai,
China, 201203
Rong.Zhang@pfizer.com
Chen Xu*: Senior Statistical Programmer
4/F, Building 3, Lotus Business Park, Lane
60, Naxian Road,
Pudong ZhangJiang Hi-tech. Park, Shanghai,
China, 201203
Chen.Xu4@pfizer.com
Huan Liu* Senior Statistical Programmer
4/F, Building 3, Lotus Business Park, Lane
60, Naxian Road,
Pudong ZhangJiang Hi-tech. Park, Shanghai,
China, 201203
Huan.Liu@pfizer.com
Jiyang Chen*: Senior Statistical Programmer
4/F, Building 3, Lotus Business Park, Lane
60, Naxian Road,
Pudong ZhangJiang Hi-tech. Park, Shanghai,
China, 201203
Jiyang.Chen@pfizer.com
Bochen Zhu*: Senior Statistical Programmer
4/F, Building 3, Lotus Business Park, Lane
60, Naxian Road,
Pudong ZhangJiang Hi-tech. Park, Shanghai,
China, 201203
Bochen.Zhu@pfizer.com
Ran Xiong*: Senior Statistical Programmer
4/F, Building 3, Lotus Business Park, Lane
60, Naxian Road,
Pudong ZhangJiang Hi-tech. Park, Shanghai,
China, 201203
Ran.Xiong@pfizer.com
I wonder if the raw data is also located in China?
There is a lot more data I am still reviewing, and tens of thousands of more pages of data still to be released by the FDA.
But with everyone watching what is happening in the Ukraine right now, I wonder if anyone is even noticing this?
The New York Times, floundering in the deep waters of truth and desperately trying to stay afloat in the shallows by continuing its history of lying for its CIA masters, has just published a front page of propaganda worthy of the finest house organs of totalitarian regimes. Right below its February 26, 2022 headline denouncing Russia and Putin as evil dogs pursuant to the American empire’s dictates concerning Ukraine, it posts an unflattering photo of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. sandwiched between American flags with the title of its hit piece, “A Kennedy’s Crusade Against Covid Vaccines Anguishes Family and Friends.”
It’s an exquisite juxtaposition: Putin as Hitler and Kennedy as a junior demon, suggestive of the relationship between C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape and his nephew Wormwood in The Screwtape Letters. Evil personified.
The Times is big into anguish these days, not only for Nazis in Ukraine and upper class apartment hunters who can’t find a place for less than a few million, but for Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s family and friends. It’s very touching. That his sister, Kerry Kennedy, would harshly criticize him once again is genuinely pathetic, but of course she has to add how much she loves him, ostensibly to take the sting out of her inability to remain sisterly silent.
They don’t because they can’t; so the next best thing is to criticize their brother to media glad for any way to disparage the Kennedys. One senses a very weird masochistic family dynamic at work.
Kennedy’s siblings do not seem to understand why the media have been attacking him for years. His stance on vaccines and Anthony Fauci are the cover story they use to criticize him, and his siblings don’t get it. That their brother has become a major thorn in the side of the CIA escapes them, the CIA that has caused so much devastation to their family and the world. The CIA that has been deeply involved in the global vaccine push, working with medical technocrats like Anthony Fauci, billionaires such as Bill Gates, the military, media, Big Pharma, the World Economic Forum, etc. Calling your brother brilliant while ignoring his book’s searing, evidence-based indictment of the intelligence-run Covid-19 operation is more than sad, especially when doing so to The New York Times, the CIA’s paper of record together with The Washington Post.
Character assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is what the CIA and its media mouthpieces have been doing for years. This has become more and more necessary as they have realized the great growing danger he poses to their agenda. Calling him an anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist, and names far worse, is part of a concerted smear campaign to turn the public away from his message, which is multi-faceted and supported by deep research and impeccable logic. Like his father and uncle, he has become an irrepressibly eloquent opponent of the demonic forces intent on destroying the democratic dream.
The Times article by Adam Nagourney is a blatant hatchet job filled with sly jabs, innuendos, and ignorant lies. As is par for the course, his hack piece completely avoids Kennedy’s arguments but relies on a form of social gossip that substitutes for logic and evidence. He seems to have learned much from The National Enquirer and The New York Post’s “Page Six” whose styles the NY Times has emulated.
Nagourney tells the reader that RFK, Jr.’s work as the face of the vaccine resistance movement has “tested,” “rattled,” “anguished,” and “mystified” family, friends and his Hollywood crowd; that this man “of the often troubled life” …. “has effectively used his talent and one of the most prominent names in American political history as a platform for fueling resistance to vaccines that could save countless lives.”
Translation: Kennedy, a Hollywood hobnobber and former drug addict, is so mentally unbalanced that he will betray his family and friends and kill people with medical advice that runs counter to the truth.
No evidence is required to establish this “truth,” just Nagourney’s word and those of those he can get to say the same thing, in other words. Such as:
His conduct ‘undercuts 50 years of public health vaccine practice, and he’s done it in a way I’ve never see [sic] anyone else do it,’ said Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. ‘He is among the most dangerous because of the credibility of who he is and what his family name has brought to this issue.’
Notice the implication: that these experimental mRNA so-called vaccines have been around 50 years and Kennedy is against all vaccines, both of which are false.
Furthermore, Nagourney says RFK, Jr. not only “inveighs” against vaccines, especially Covid vaccinations, but has adopted other weird “unorthodox” views (implication: orthodox views are good) over the years.
One is his claim that Sirhan Sirhan did not kill his father Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Nagourney might do a smidgen of research and discover that Kennedy is correct; but doing so would disrupt the flow of his ad hominem attack. All serious writers on the case know that the senator was not shot by Sirhan; they know there are deep CIA connections to the assassination. The evidence conclusively proves, as the autopsy has shown, that Sirhan was in front of the senator when he fired his pistol but RFK was shot from the rear at very close range with all bullets entering his body from the rear. Nagourney either knows nothing about the assassination or is dissembling the facts, which must be “unorthodox.”
Sounding like a U.S. government spokesmen telling the press something is true without an iota of evidence, he writes the following sentence as if it were true simply because he wrote it, while making sure not to mention the book’s title – The Real Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy – a brilliant, deeply researched and sourced book The Times will not review:
In a best-selling new book, he claimed that Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who is President Biden’s top medical adviser for the coronavirus pandemic, and Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, were in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to profiteer off dangerous vaccines.
Notice Nagourney’s insidious method. State RFK’s claim as if it’s false because Nagourney stated it, when in fact it is so abundantly true and backed up by massive evidence that if Nagourney dared to engage in actual journalism by checking Kennedy’s book he would discover it. But his job is not to search for truth but to defile a man’s reputation. He accuses Kennedy of circulating false information on the coronavirus and the vaccines but of course doesn’t say what that is or why it is false.
His entire article is an ad hominem attack by statement with the author cunningly hidden behind deceitful objectivity.
He writes:
To the public distress of his wife, the actress Cheryl Hines, Mr. Kennedy invoked Anne Frank, the young German-Dutch diarist who died in a Nazi prison camp, as he compared government measures for containing the pandemic with the Holocaust at that rally in Washington.
However, that is not what he said. He said that during the Holocaust Anne Frank could hide for a while and others could flee out of Germany, but with the new “turnkey totalitarianism” being introduced today, which is technological, it will be harder to escape, for every aspect of life will be monitored by the authorities in a digital dystopia. Such a perspective is in no way unusual, for it is shared by many scholars of technology and only the most naïve would consider it eccentric. His point and words were twisted to serve others’ purposes and to paint him as an insensitive Holocaust denier. Here’s what he said:
What we’re seeing today is what I call turnkey totalitarianism. They are putting in place all of these technological mechanisms for control we’ve never seen before. It’s been the ambition of every totalitarian state since the beginning of mankind to control every aspect of behavior, of conduct, of thought and to obliterate dissent. None of them have been able to do it. They didn’t have the technological capacity.
Even in Hitler’s Germany, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland. You could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did. I visited in 1962 East Germany with my father and met people who had climbed the wall and escaped, so it was possible. Many died … but it was possible.
Yet his sister Kerry also ripped him for making a statement that was clearly true if you accept his argument about the technological lockdowns in progress. You can disagree (I don’t) but to impugn his intentions and his words is really despicable, but Nagourney adds it to his ad hominem attacks, making sure to include his sister Kerry’s Tweet:
Bobby’s lies and fear-mongering yesterday were both sickening and repulsive. I strongly condemn him for his hateful rhetoric.
Nagourney: “ Even his most prominent critics say they do not doubt his sincerity, even as he has become one of the most prominent spreaders of misinformation on vaccines.”
Translation: RFK, Jr. means well but he’s deluded.
Big Daddy Fauci is introduced to tell the young whippersnapper the following after Kennedy delivered a briefing at The National Institutes of Health:
When it was over, Dr. Fauci walked Mr. Kennedy out of the conference room.
“I said, ‘Bobby, I’m sorry we didn’t come to any agreement here,’” he said. “‘Although I disagree factually with everything you are saying, I do understand and I respect that deep down you are really concerned about the safety of children.’ I said that in a very sincere way.”
Condescension and sincerity overflow as the “conspiracy theorist” patient is told by the good doctor that he means well but needs help.
Then, making sure to include The New York Times endlessly repeated CIA talking point, our no-nothing author writes:
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy, his uncle, in 1963, when Robert was 9, helped foster a modern culture of conspiracy theories. Now, many of the arguments that Mr. Kennedy has embraced — including that Dr. Fauci is part of a “historic coup d’état against Western democracy” — recall the theories of a secret assassin helping Lee Harvey Oswald from the grassy knoll in Dallas.
That it was the CIA that weaponized the use of the term “conspiracy theory” in a 1967 dispatch – #1035-960 – in order to disparage those questioning The Warren Commission and it’s cover-up of the CIA’s role in JFK’s assassination is another fact that our fair-minded scribe conveniently omits while insidiously implying that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Yes, there are magic bullets and magical tricks used to make sure RFK, Jr. is seen as a “sincere” nutcase.
RFK, Jr. has been and is an astute critic of the CIA and all its machinations, including its involvement in the assassinations of his uncle JFK, his father Senator Robert F. Kennedy, its involvement in the COVID propaganda, and in its extensive deadly deeds and disinformation at home and abroad. His critical siblings praise him for his great intelligence and political acumen but seem clueless themselves. So they ally with the same media that have been stenographers for the CIA. The Kennedy family may be very well known, but in these ways they are very typical of American families that are divided by those who know and those who don’t know who the real devils are.
But let me make two final points about this sickening piece of character assassination.
RFK, Jr. has spent decades as an environmental lawyer fighting the pollution of our air, earth, and water. In other words, the pollution also of human beings who live in nature while nature lives in us. Some people know the outside and the inside are connected. Yet Nagourney bemoans the tragic turn he took from such good work with the environment to such terrible work with Children’s Health Defense and vaccines. He writes:
The swerve in Mr. Kennedy’s career, from the environment to vaccines, is particularly startling because for many family members and other Kennedy associates, Robert Kennedy Jr. is the sibling who most recalls the level of charisma and political appeal of his late father.
Startling? No, very consistent for one who can think. There is an obvious link between the major corporate polluters of the outside environment and the major polluters of human bodies. Big pharmaceutical, oil, chemical, agribusiness, military, etc. are an interrelated lot of criminal enterprises despoiling all life on earth. Kennedy’s lifetime work has followed a natural trajectory and underlying it all is his critique of the CIA and its media accomplices, such as The New York Times.
Yes, those family and friends who say he’s brilliant are right, and he is following in his father’s footsteps in ways they do not grasp; for he is able to connect the dots, diagnose the patterns, and expose with facts the criminal syndicates that are destroying democracy and so many lives.
The reason The New York Times publishes hit pieces like this and does not review his recent books is because his critique of these nefarious forces has gained a large audience and as a result many people are awakening to the truths concealed by the likes of “the paper of record” with its propaganda.
Hit pieces like Nagourney’s should cause anyone reading it intense “anguish.” There is nothing “mystifying” about it.
U.S. health officials continue to say blood-clotting disorders like the one that killed 52-year-old Monica Melkonianare two weeks after the J&J vaccine are rare — despite thousands of vaccine-induced blood-clotting events reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The husband of an Oregon woman who died last year from a blood-clotting disorder — two weeks after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID vaccine — spoke out publicly this week about his wife’s death.
Stan Thomas told NBC News he’s fighting to ensure his wife’s sacrifice is not forgotten.
“When it’s 8 million doses and two people are going to die from it,” Thomas said, “who thinks it’s going to be you?”
NBC News characterized the risk of harm in general from COVID vaccines as “a 1-in-a-million risk.”
And U.S. health officials continue to say blood-clotting disorders like the one that killed Thomas’ wife are rare — despite thousands of vaccine-induced blood-clotting events reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Monica Melkonian, 52, received her J&J shot at a vaccination clinic on April 7, 2021 — the same day the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) temporarily paused the vaccine while they investigated numerous reports of a rare blood-clotting disorder called vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
VITT is a sometimes fatal condition characterized by simultaneous acute thrombosis and thrombocytopenia that presents after receiving a COVID vaccine.
Melkonian’s most notable symptoms included a persistent headache and pain behind her left eye. But Thomas said she and her husband continued to work around their home and carry out their daily activities.
Her headache was mostly gone by April 17, but at 4 a.m the next day, Thomas heard his wife call out as she hit the floor. She experienced a seizure and could not move her right arm. Thomas, who immediately suspected a stroke caused by the shot, called 9-1-1.
“The progression of this was just lightning-fast,” Thomas said, “which I am tragically grateful for.”
At the emergency room, Thomas asked his wife to squeeze his hand once for “yes” and twice for “no” in an effort to communicate with her.
“The last thing that I said to her was that I loved her and asked her to squeeze my hand twice,” Thomas said. “She did.”
“This blood clot was seen in combination with very low platelets,” the Oregon Health Authority wrote in a statement. “Prior to the issuance of the pause, cases of this serious blood clot had been identified among six women around the country who received the vaccine.”
Both Melkonian and her husband were “experts in the field of occupational health and safety” and were directly involved in the COVID pandemic response, Thomas said.
Both were aware of risks associated with COVID vaccines, but they believed the risks paled in comparison to the risks associated with the virus.
Thomas said he is steadfastly “pro-vax,” but questions whether health authorities have done enough to help people understand their options.
U.S. acknowledges only nine deaths from blood clots following J&J shot
During the CDC vaccine advisory panel’s most recent benefit and risk assessment meeting, on Dec. 16, 2021, the agency acknowledged only 54 cases of blood-clotting conditions among J&J recipients, including nine deaths.
Thirty-nine of the 54 reported cases occurred before the CDC and FDA paused the vaccine in April to investigate its link to blood clots.
The CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force said it excluded “reports where [the] only thrombosis is ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction” — a move that significantly reduced the number of blood-clotting cases included in the task force’s analysis.
According to the CDC website, most strokes (87%) are ischemic strokes. An ischemic stroke occurs when blood flow through the artery that supplies oxygen-rich blood to the brain becomes blocked — a condition often caused by blood clots.
Myocardial infarction is a heart attack that occurs when the heart muscle doesn’t get enough blood due to a blockage — such as a blood clot — in the arteries that supply blood to the heart.
Because rates were still higher than previously estimated among both men and women, the panel voted 15 – 0 to “preferentially recommend” mRNA COVID vaccines Pfizer and Moderna over the J&J shot for adults 18 years and older.
However, both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also are associated with blood-clotting disorders.
According to data compiled by “Our World In Data,” between Dec. 14, 2021, and Feb. 18, 2022, 18.36 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given.
Data from VAERS show there were 2,275 reports of blood-clotting disorders following J&J’s COVID vaccine between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 10, 2021 — a far greater number than the 54 cases acknowledged by the CDC during its December advisory meeting.
The Defender has reported on numerous cases of blood clots following COVID vaccination with the J&J shot:
Jessica Berg Wilson, a 37-year-old mother died from VITT after she received J&J’s COVID vaccine as a condition of volunteering at her child’s school.
Emma Burkey, an 18-year-old teen was put on a respirator and underwent three brain surgeries from blood clots after receiving J&J’s vaccine.
Anne VanGeest, a healthy 35-year-old, died of a brain hemorrhage 11 days after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Brad Malagarie, a healthy 43-year-old father of seven experienced a stroke from blood clots hours after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. The stroke left him unable to walk, talk and with paralysis on the right side of his body.
A 30-year-old man from California on April 8, 2021, was hospitalized and treated for a blood clotting disorder he developed after receiving J&J’s vaccine.
Barbara Buchanan developed blood clots in her lungs, stomach, brain and throat 6 to 8 days after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. She chose J&J because it was a one-dose shot, and because experts declared the vaccine was safe after they lifted a 10-day pause.
Kendra Lippy, a healthy 38-year old woman, was diagnosed with severe blood clots that subsequently sent most of her organs into failure after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. She also was left without most of her small intestine — and with crippling medical bills.
Sandra Jacobs, a 60-year-old woman died from blood clots after receiving the J&J shot, according to an autopsy report released Sept. 20, 2021, by a forensic pathologist for Michigan Medicine.
On April 13, 2021, federal agencies paused J&J’s COVID vaccine, marketed under its Janssen subsidiary, while they investigated the vaccine’s possible link to dangerous and potentially fatal blood clots.
During the April 23, 2021 meeting, the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel said it had identified 15 women diagnosed with rare blood clots, including three who died.
Only two of the women were older than 50, with the risk highest in women ages 30 to 39.
The CDC’s advisory panel said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s “benefits outweighed the risks” and recommended the vaccine for persons 18 and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization.
On April 26, 2021, the FDA amended its EUA for the J&J vaccine to reflect the risk of rare blood clots and said vaccinations could resume immediately.
We should clarify that these injections are gene therapies, rather than vaccines.
Of course, as we have seen numerous times in recent years, definitions need to be changed to fit the new narratives. For example, not so long ago the Merriam Webster dictionary stated that a vaccine was a preparation of killed micro organisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.
Then, in January 2021, the definition suddenly changed. Now, what was happening around that time, the new definition in the dictionary look quite different and included: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).
Now, the fact checkers were quick to gaslight the public and say it was all taken out of context. Sit back and relax, they advised, because it was about the new technology of mRNA vaccines made publicly available in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Injecting genetic sequences into a human, in order for it to be taken out by the cells and then cause a change in cellular expression, is a gene therapy. Even wikipedia, at the moment at least, states under the gene therapy page that there are a variety of gene therapy modalities including RNA, DNA and gene editing tools such as CRISPR. And BioNTech, Moderna Therapeutics and CureVac focus on delivery of mRNA payloads.
This is not that important to those of us that know that vaccines are one of the greatest scams being run, as we are not interested in taking any of them.
However, it is important for the gene therapy recipients, as well as for the shedding question.
The sequences being injected are smuggled into the cells via the lipid nanoparticle technology. Without it the […] mRNA would be quickly broken down after injection.
These injections cause the body to produce the so-called spike protein. This is alleged to be a modified version of the SARS-COV-2 virus spike protein. However, the virus is a fictional construct, as the virus has never been shown to exist.
The spike protein comes from somewhere else.
And, even though Dr. Fauci was talking about spike protein vaccines back in 2005, after SARS 1, that virus was never shown to exist either.
The spike protein sequences can be found in lab experiments that stress and kill mammalian cells.
…
In any case, there is enough known about the spike proteins to see that they can be toxic if they are released inside the body. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell a product or is making excuses for it. You may hear claims that, as it is only a tiny part of the virus, it’s safe. However, as there has been no virus shown to exist, they are simply parroting the virologist’s claims and big pharma marketing.
But can these spike proteins shed from the bodies of the injected and affect another person?
My supporter mentioned that shedding of particles seems to be a valid concept as it can occur with things like body odor. This is true and that the sweat glands secrete various compounds including proteins which can mix with skin organisms — and the resulting particle aerosols so that other people can smell them. The secretions themselves could also come into direct contact with another person.
However, I don’t believe this puts another person at significant risk from any potential spike proteins. Proteins coming into contact with intact skin are not going to be able to get in. And proteins are generally broken down rapidly if they are swallowed or inhaled.
Another question was whether Pfizer admitted that there was some risk of shedding from recipients, due to the way the original clinical trial protocol was written.
For example, under section 8.3.5, there are clauses stating environmental exposure may occur. ‘A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact, then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.’
It goes on to say this: ‘In the case of a life birth, the structural integrity of the neonate can be assessed at the time of birth. In the event of a termination…the structural integrity of the terminated faces should be assessed by gross visual inspection.’
…
One of the reasons I did not find it plausible that spike protein shedding could significantly affect other people is that we exposed the lack of evidence that proteins can be infectious in a chapter in ‘Virus Mania‘, which we titled BSE: The Epidemic That Never Was.
In 1997 Stanley Prusiner put forward his theory of infectious proteins, known as prions, being responsible for spongiform brain diseases, such as mad cow disease. Despite all the excitement and senseless slaughter of animals that it caused, the model was never demonstrated to be relevant in nature.
Experiments involving injecting protein mixtures directly into animals brains can hardly be said to be a representation of what happens in natural settings. Like the virus theory, the required evidence is conspicuously absent.
Of course, there are particular scenarios where transmission will occur and the most obvious is that of unborn babies whose mothers are producing spike protein. In fact, everything that has been injected into the mother is potentially going into the fetus or embryo — and that includes the spike protein, the mRNA coding sequence, the lipid nanoparticles and the undeclared constituents that we’ll get into soon.
…
The spike proteins are not the only thing we have to worry about though. Numerous laboratories around the world have found graphene-based particles and what looks like nanotechnology, both in the vaccine vials and blood of recipients.
Pathologist Professor Arne Burckhardt in Germany, Dr. Pablo Campra of La Quinta Columna in Spain, Dr. Zandre Botha in South Africa, Dr. Marcelo Dignani in Argentina, and recently a physician here in New Zealand, are among those who have found these undeclared constituents.
There is much speculation about what the purpose of these particles are. But some appear to be nanorouters. It is also being reported that they are capable of receiving and transmitting signals, and even generating internet MAC addresses…
…
Whatever they can do, it is important to know about the nature of graphene and it’s useful to see what engineers had to say about the subject.
It is difficult to comprehend that graphene sheets can be a single layer of carbon atoms in thickness. And, as discussed in this 2013 publication, have extra ordinary electrical, mechanical and thermal properties. The paper points out that, because the particles are so minute, they can get into people quite readily through inhalation.
This is being studied previously and mice where researchers found that the particles cause harmful health effects in the lungs due to the inability of the host to clear them, and the failure of macrophages to clean them up. Their retention in the tissues then sets up an inflammatory response and through the tissue damage.
However, they did conclude that ‘our initial data also suggests that the graphene nanoplatelets are not fully bio-persistent, and clear slowly to the mediastinal lymph nodes. More research was required to see if the particles are subsequently cleared from the lymph nodes in body’.
Back to the engineers’ paper and they go on to say that, ‘in addition to occupational exposures, graphene family nanoparticles may be deliberately implanted or injected for biomedical applications that include biosensors, tissue scaffolds, carriers for drug delivery or gene therapy, antibacterial agents and bioimaging probes.’
…
They performed experiments to see how human cells responded to challenge with graphene microsheets. In these scanning electron micrographs, image A shows the graphene particles penetrating a human lung cell, while image C and D show the particles penetrating human skin cells.
The authors concluded — they ‘hypothesize that graphene microsheets that penetrate into hydrophobic lipid domains may be recognized as damage-associated molecular patterns by target cells that are the first line of defense against particles… The ability of graphene microsheets with large lateral dimension to penetrate and enter cells… may lead to cytoskeletal disruption, impaired cell motility, compromised epithelial barrier function, or other geometric and steric effects that deserve further study.’
In other words, the particles can slice through cells, disrupt the structure and normal function, and activate a generalized inflammatory response.
Combined with the fact that the body struggles to clear such particles, that could be a recipe for chronic inflammatory conditions and even cancer.
Despite the fact that graphene is bad news for humans, in 2021 these researchers associated with AstraZeneca produced Graphene Quantum Dot to deliver messenger RNA into cells.
…[image shown in video shows page 666 ChemistryOpen 2021, Wiley Online Library] on page 666 of the chemistry Europe publication. And they proceeded to describe the creation of the ‘Franken-molecule’ consisting of the graphene quantum dots linked to mRNA sequences.
They seem happy to announce that graphene quantum dots are able to respond to physical stimuli such as magnetic fields, ultrasound, and light. They also make the curious claim that the graphene quantum dots are not toxic, although cellular toxicity is a problem for these first-generation modified particles.
Cellular toxicity means they are toxic.
What is most disturbing to me about this work is that it demonstrates the integration between synthetic nanoparticles and biological molecules. While this might excite Dr. Evil and his acolytes, it is a desecration of our bodies and an example of how out of touch they are with the nature of life in the universe.
So, many of us will avoid intentional exposure to graphene nanoparticles, but can people injected with them shed these particles in and affect others in contact with them?
It would seem, from the published research discussed here, that the particles are difficult and slow to clear from the body. This would not be coming out of injected recipients very readily. However, if they were cleared, then potentially someone in close contact could be exposed.
I have received communication from a dark field microscopist who compared blood film from an injected and a non-injected subject. And a few nanoparticles were seen, albeit at a much lower concentration, in the non-injected subject.
This raises questions about how the small number of particles got into the non-injected subject. And exactly what we are seeing.
I can’t give you a definitive conclusion at this stage as we await more information. We know that the globalists have some set agendas they are attempting to roll out. And they want to disconnect us from spirituality in their perverted plan for humanity.
Dr. Harari and his devil buddies are so unconscious that they think they are gods. To them, you are livestock that is ripe for their transhumanist experiments and eventual enslavement. In other words, you need to be on your guard.
However, if you do not already know this, I can tell you that they don’t really have any power over you unless you give it to them. It is as easy as ignoring them and not walking into the cages that they are directing you towards.
…
A small number of us sounded the alarm in 2020 that the alleged Covid-19 pandemic was a ruse. It has been pushed with fraudulent science. But unfortunately, from my experience, even 99 percent of doctors cannot properly interpret the papers that claimed to show the existence of SARS-CoV-2.
It does not require a large number of people to be in on the scam. Most have been tricked and have gone along with it in ignorance.
The good news is that around the world more people are waking up. Many that have been injected are realizing that they had been deceived, and increasingly I’ve been contacted by people who have been jabbed but will never take another vaccine again.
I suspect plenty of individuals received the shot and didn’t produce spike proteins. There haven’t been damaged in that way.
With regards to the undeclared nanoparticles, there a lots of unknowns…
I have faith that people can heal from what has been done to them. But the first step is to stop listening to big pharma and the globalist sociopaths, to take back control of our own health.
Chile now has a law for mutants and genetically altered individuals. It’s a rather peculiar law, in addition to the neuro-rights law, which also exists in that country.
What could be the reason for the enactment of this new law?
Obviously, the reason for the origin of this law —which will probably soon be replicated in other countries— is because there’s already a considerable number of people in the population who are no longer human, but transgenic beings.
Orwell City brings into English a summary of this rare yet real law that Chile now has to prevent people from being discriminated in their jobs because they are mutants or have their genome altered in some way.
Narrator:
After becoming the first country to add neuro-rights to its Constitution, Chile now also becomes the first country in the world not to discriminate against mutants and genetically altered individuals after publishing Law 21.422 on February 16, 2022.
Specifically, this law forbids “employment discrimination in the face of mutations or alterations of genetic material.”
The question everyone is asking now is, what’s the reason for this law?
Since Chile is one of the most inoculated countries in the world, it’s not surprising that such a law has been enacted. As dissident doctors warned from the beginning, these inoculums contain secret materials and components that alter the human genome. Of course, this genetic modification is inheritable.
And well, What does the new Chilean law establish?
1. No employer may condition the hiring of workers, their permanence or renewal of their contract, or promotion or mobility in their employment, to the absence of mutations or alterations in their genome.
2. The worker may give his free and informed consent to undergo a genetic test.
3. If these examinations are required by the employer, the employer shall bear the cost thereof.
4. The health establishments and laboratories that carry out this type of test, as well as the employers who have access to this information, shall adopt all security measures to protect the privacy of the worker and guarantee reserved handling of the data.
5. The worker will always have the right to access the information resulting from a genetic test.
With all these laws that are appearing, do you still believe that these inoculums are vaccines?
The paper by Aldén, et al, titled “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line,” published on 25 February 2022, reveals what some of us have been warning about since the experimental mRNA injections were released onto largely unsuspecting populations. That is, the mechanisms do indeed exist for the genetic injections to change and/or damage the recipient’s genome.
In New Zealand, Medsafe approved the Pfizer injections for wholesale use in the country despite minimal safety data being available. In 2021 they engaged their “experts,” Professor Peter McIntyre from the University of Otago and Dr Ian Town, Chief Science Advisor for the Ministry of Health to address any “concern that permanent alteration of DNA may occur.” Bizarrely, they went way out on a limb in a few sentences in the following letter to NZDSOS:
“Messenger RNA is unstable, which is why it must be stored at very low temperatures prior to use. As mRNA does not enter the nucleus and is rapidly broken down by the cell after protein transcription has occurred, it is unable to alter DNA (Ref 10) . This is shown in the graphic below (Ref 11).”
~ Report for Medsafe: Professor P McIntyre & Dr Ian Town, 14 June 2021
Nature is not directed by colourful man-made cartoons.
NZDSOS were concerned that this was an over-simplification of the state of the science and thus presented a paper to Medsafe the following week, specifically addressing the potential problems:
“The science on this is still unfolding and we are concerned that the authors claim a definitive statement on this topic. The first reference the authors provide is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website which is aimed at providing the public with a simple overview of the mRNA injection. The second reference (and diagram) only shows the ‘proposed sequence of events leading to the generation of adaptive immune responses upon mRNA vaccination’. From this the authors appear to conclude that it would be impossible for the injected mRNA to become integrated into our DNA because mRNA does not work that way.”
~ NZDSOS to Medsafe, 21 June 2021
The mechanism for the conversion of RNA to DNA is possible through reverse transcriptase enzymes. Although some virologists have suggested that reverse transcriptase is specific to “retroviruses” it has long been known that the enzymes can be found in normal mammalian cells. This has been well documented by The Perth Group and has gained more mainstream attention in recent years including in this SciTechDaily article in 2021:
“Thomas Jefferson University researchers provide the first evidence that RNA segments can be written back into DNA, which potentially challenges the central dogma in biology and could have wide implications affecting many fields of biology. ‘This work opens the door to many other studies that will help us understand the significance of having a mechanism for converting RNA messages into DNA in our own cells,’ says Richard Pomerantz, PhD, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Thomas Jefferson University.”
~ New Discovery Shows Human Cells Can Write RNA Sequences Into DNA – Challenges Central Principle in Biology. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY JUNE 12, 2021
I’m not sure why they think the central dogma of biology is only now being “potentially challenged” as it was never proven to be relevant from the day that Francis Crick first suggested it in 1958, but at least they are opening their eyes.
In any case, what did Aldén et al’s recent paper demonstrate? I’ll outline some of the highlights:
“Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.“
“BNT162b2 DNA amplicons were detected in all three time points (6, 24, and 48 h). Sanger sequencing confirmed that the DNA amplicons were identical to the BNT162b2 sequence flanked by the primers.”
“In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects.”
~ Alden, M. et al. (2022.) Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44(3), 1115-1126.
NZ Ministry of Health’s Infomercial for Pfizer: so many things wrong here, where should we start?
Now, to be clear this does not mean that those who have been injected with the Pfizer BioNTech product have had their DNA modified – but it raises very significant concerns. The study was carried out in vitro (in a test tube) with Huh-7 cells which are of human origin but derived from an abnormal (liver cancer) cell line.
Therefore, the next logical step would be to assess whether those that have been injected with the product have evidence that the sequence has been integrated into their DNA.
The authors didn’t proceed to test this themselves although suggested that genomic sequencing and integrity should be checked in “human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.” Who will (be allowed to) take up the challenge?
This paper comes hot on the heels of another major revelation related to these mRNA injections. Dr Mikolaj Raszek has recently highlighted a potential problem that is apparent in the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) own “Nonclinical Evaluation Report” on Pfizer’s Comirnaty (BNT162b2). Dr Raszek has previously discussed how the spike protein can circulate in the blood of the injected for months, which considering the recent Aldén et al paper, may be explained by the integration of the genetic sequence into the host’s DNA. In effect, the jabbed may produce the spike protein indefinitely or at least have the potential to do so. His latest revelation from the TGA’s report adds more weight to his theory that the spike proteins themselves are entering the nucleus of the cell and once it is inside it “could be a mutagen because it prevents the fixing of our DNA.”
All in all it makes the Australian TGA look like a complicit partner in this COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity as they gamble on their citizens lives under the influence of Pfizer:
“Neither the mRNA nor the lipid excipients of the LNP formulation are expected to have genotoxic potential. However, the potential of the LNP or the vaccine formulation for complement activation or stimulation of cytokine release was not adequately assessed in nonclinical studies. Further investigation (i.e., analysis of complement activation and cytokine stimulation) is recommended unless this particular concern is addressed by clinical data. The absence of a repeat dose toxicity study in a second species and genotoxicity studies with the novel excipients was adequately justified by the Sponsor…Short term protection studies, lack of pharmacokinetic data for the S antigen-encoding mRNA (BNT162b2 V9), suboptimal dosing interval in the repeat dose study, lack of repeat dose toxicity studies in a second species and genotoxicity studies with the novel excipients, and lack of studies investigating potential for autoimmune diseases were noted. However, these deficiencies are either adequately justified by the Sponsor or addressable by clinical data.”
~ Nonclinical Evaluation Report BNT162b2 [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATY™). Australian Government Therapeutic Goods Administration. January 2021.
Pfizer’s Comirnaty brought their corporation around US$36 billion in revenue in 2021, and they expect to top that in 2022. Their product can’t possibly protect anyone from an undefined clinical entity and a “virus” that does not exist. What we can see is that entire countries are being swindled out of billions of dollars while their hapless citizens are at risk of becoming genetically modified organisms in addition to the barrage of other toxic effects they are enduring from these injections.
Wall Street investors are dumping their Moderna and Pfizer stock faster than the world can drop the mandates. Moderna is down 70 percent from its high, while Pfizer is off 19 percent. Former Blackrock Executive and investment adviser Edward Dowd calls for Moderna to go to zero and Pfizer to end under ten dollars per share.
How is this possible given that Pfizer now enjoys record earnings per share and a market capitalization of some $270 billion, making it the 29th largest corporation globally? With nothing but profits in sight for the Pharmaceutical giant, what could be the problem?
After all, in December, a Forbes’ headline read, “The Vaccine Maker Can Dominate The Covid Market For Years to Come, Wells Fargo Predicts.” In addition to the enormously profitable mRNA vaccines, Pfizer is rolling out potent antivirals like Paxlovid, which could earn $22 billion in 2022.
Compared to the $81 billion in 2021 revenue, the earnings from the vaccines and the antivirals could top $102 billion for 2022, which is music to shareholders’ ears. However some are hearing shrieks, and these happen to be Wall Street’s finest, the smart money that beats the rest of the herd to the exits like clockwork.
These sophisticated investors make it their business to not go with the conventional wisdom but to do their own research, which often pays spectacular dividends.
Edward Dowd is one such investor. He saw the dot com bubble ready to burst and acted accordingly. But, unfortunately, other not-so-savvy investors later saw their dot com heavy portfolios collapse as the NASDAQ Composite Index lost 40% of its value in 2000.
Dowd, a graduate of Notre Dame University and former Portfolio Manager at Blackrock, grew his fund from $2 billion to $14 billion and commanded the respect of his investment community peers.
Today, after semi-retiring to the shores of South Maui, he remains a voice of stock market wisdom that many hedge funds continue to rely upon. LinkedIn lists him as a Consultant to Founder & Partner of Symphonic Capital, LLC.
But the dot com collapse is not the only one Dowd successfully navigated. While many other portfolio managers placed their client’s money in highly rated and lucrative mortgage-backed securities, Dowd hesitated and questioned. He considered that those might be grossly over-rated, and he was correct.
It turns out that the mortgage rating system was corrupted by the high profitability of predatory financial products tied to home mortgages. According to Edward Dowd, a large portion of the blame was shouldered by the rating agencies, those trusted organizations whose job it was to judge the risk of these subprime mortgage-backed securities – agencies like Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch.
Dowd says they turned a blind eye to the true risk because it was profitable. So, in essence, these rating agencies were captured by the institutions backing these risky subprime securities.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, put it this way, “The incentive structure of the ratings agencies also proved perverse. Agencies such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s are paid by the very people they are supposed to grade. As a result, they’ve had every reason to give companies high ratings, in a financial version of what college professors know as grade inflation.”
Dowd has sounded the alarm on Moderna and Pfizer as sinking ships that investors need to abandon. So what does the man who foresaw the dot com and the subprime mortgage crisis have to say about Moderna and Pfizer, and what trouble could exist in the paradise of COVID vaccine profits?
Here are Dowd’s words:
I want to liken here to what’s gone on in the Great Financial Crisis. We had rating agencies, third-party verification sources that were able to perpetuate the fraud because the money got too big, their institutions became corrupted with the institutional imperative, and they got triple-A ratings which we all know in hindsight were not triple-A ratings – let’s move forward to today.
The FDA is the trusted third-party verification of pharmaceutical products. 50% of their budget comes from Pharma…due to the institutional imperative that was in place at the time and the speed with which they tried to approve these unproven products with this unproven technology, fraud did occur, and what’s my proof of that? The FDA, together with Pfizer, were trying to hide the clinical data.
And it’s come out recently…that the all-cause mortality for the Pfizer product failed – that means there were more deaths in the vaccine group than the placebo group. Normally in such a case, you have NO drug approval for such drugs. It’s the gold standard. I’ve been told by all my people in the Biotech Industry they were horrified… See mark 25:10.
And unfortunately, that is not all. Dowd feels that although he has successfully predicted three large frauds in his career, he now expects a global financial market collapse with the debt bubble getting ready to burst.
“So I’ve seen three frauds; the corporate fraud of the dot com boom, the bank fraud of the Great Financial Recession, and I believe the fraud has moved on to central banks and governments – because that’s the nature of our monetary system – you have to constantly create credit to keep this thing going.” See mark 2:22.
“The global debt bubble is at its peak…we are at the end…we are going to see lots of crazy things in the financial markets…we are going to see the credit markets become unhinged, the equity markets become unhinged. The Fed got a reprieve…under the cover of COVID, they were able to print 65% more money to keep this thing afloat, but we are at the end days here.” See mark 3:41.
He clarifies that the emergence of global totalitarianism is not purely about power and profit. Instead Dowd feels it is to control the masses when they realize the economy is collapsing – the ramifications of which may be the loss of pensions and social security income.
“A lot of what you are seeing in the response of global governments is setting up a system – under the guise of medical tyranny – to prevent the riots that are going to ensue once this thing all unwinds – that’s my personal belief…” See mark 4:04.
For the skeptics, consider that Pfizer stock lost $20 billion in market capitalization on February 8, 2022, when their record earnings fell short of more optimistic expectations.
Dowd predicts Moderna will drop to zero with bankruptcy as fraud related to concealing the COVID vaccine dangers surfaces, and he predicts Pfizer will become a sub-ten-dollar stock. Dowd explains that the smart money has already left Moderna and will soon be exiting Pfizer.
Dowd foresees an avalanche of lawsuits coming as the insurance industry continues to uncover the legions of mounting deaths coming from the complications of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Dowd teamed up with an insurance industry analyst and researched the life insurance claims. They found that since OneAmerica shocked the world by announcing a 40% rise in non-COVID deaths in younger working-class employees, multiple other insurance companies worldwide have seen the same thing – massive rises in non-COVID deaths. And the evidence inescapably points to the vaccines as the cause. See mark 13:16.
Meanwhile, the funeral company stocks have outperformed the S&P. “Funeral Home companies are growth stocks. They had a great year in 2021 compared to 2020, and they outperformed the S&P 500. The peer group of Funeral Home stocks was up 40 plus percent while the S&P was up 26 percent – and they started accelerating price-wise in 2021 during the roll-out of the vaccines – You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots here.” See mark 5:55.
Other insurance companies have reported the same or worse death numbers as OneAmerica. For example, “Unum Insurance is up 36%, Lincoln National plus 57%, Prudential plus 41%, Reinsurance Group of America plus 21%, Hartford plus 32%, Met Life plus 24%, and Aegon – which is a Dutch insurer – saw in their US arm plus 57% in the 4th quarter – in the 3rd quarter they saw a 258% increase in death claims.” See mark 07:55.
“They raised (mortality) expectations 300,000 for 2022 over 2021 due to COVID plus ‘indirect COVID,’ which I think we know what that’s code for… They (Aegon) did a
$1.4 billion reinsurance deal with Wilton Reinsurance…what they were reinsuring were high face amount individual policies from 1 million to 10 million… (So) I think there is an asymmetric information situation going on in the insurance industry where some people have figured out something’s going on. They are off-loading their risk – they are not going to say what it is as they don’t want that information to get out as they unload the risk.” See mark 08:49.
“Someone is going to be the bag holder here.” And Dowd is confident it won’t be the insurance industry. A court in France has already held that a life insurance company cannot be held liable for a death because of the mRNA vaccine.
But that does not explain how mRNA manufacturers can be held responsible for an emergency product they were told was liability-free. Aren’t the vaccine manufacturers immunized from lawsuits?
After all, they were granted EUA, the specialized Emergency Use Authorization, which means they cannot be held legally accountable for deaths or adverse effects stemming from the experimental vaccines.
The idea is that no company – upon government request – should have to pay for unforeseen complications resulting from an emergency product that they released to the world out of their goodness of the hearts, with the best of intentions. Right?
Wrong – not when your company accomplishes this through deceit, also known as fraud.
Fraud undoes all these protections. If a company or person intentionally deceives another to profit, we have fraud. If Pfizer’s data showed increased all-cause mortality and hid this to motivate people to take the vaccine while claiming it was safe, then fraud exists.
Under common law, the required elements to prove fraud amount to:
#1. A materially false statement or purposeful failure to state or release material facts which non-disclosure makes other statements misleading.
#2. The false statement is made to induce Plaintiff to act.
#3. The Plaintiff relied upon the false statement, and the injury resulted from this reliance.
#4. Damages include a punitive award as a punishment that serves as a public example to discourage any future similar fraud. Punitive damages are generally proportional to the Defendant’s assets.
Dowd has been researching the COVID-19 vaccines and what he considers obvious evidence of knowing concealment of the actual risks of death – and he points to the Herculean efforts of Pfizer with FDA in withholding their data despite legal challenges to release it. He likens the FDA today to the rating agencies during the Mortgage Crisis.
“FDA is the trusted third party, just like the rating agencies were. And a lot of doctors in this country, a lot of local governments are placing their trust in the FDA which gets 50 percent of its budget from large cap pharma. It wasn’t any one person…I think they overlooked things…An all-cause mortality end-point should have stopped this thing in its tracks – and it didn’t.” See mark 1:51.
There were more deaths in the vaxxed group than in the unvaxxed. Dowd assumes fraud based upon the FDA backing Pfizer in not releasing their data. He believes this is a knowing attempt to conceal the deaths.
“When one party enters into a contract…and fraud was occurring when they entered into that contract, and the other party did not know that – the contract is void and null. There’s no indemnity if this can be proven, and I think it will be.” See mark 4:45.
“Pfizer got blanket immunity with EUA. If fraud occurred, to my mind and what I’m seeing from their refusal to release the data – if there is fraud and it comes out – and we need whistleblowers – and it’s looking more apparent that this product is deadly –
fraud eviscerates all contracts – that’s case law. So you go down the daisy chain, and that’s liability – that’s bankruptcy for Moderna, definitely Pfizer.” See mark 00:51.
He notes that the deaths skyrocketed after the vaccine rollout when they should have dropped. And the deaths are what distinguished the 2021-2022 vaccine scandal as far worse than what happened with Enron.
“People are dying and being maimed. This is a fraud that goes beyond the pale…We have the VAERS data…We have the DoD leak…And now we have the insurance company results and the funeral home results…We don’t need to think too hard about this…Deaths should have gone down after the vaccines rolled out. This is the most egregious fraud in history of the nation – and it’s global…Pfizer’s involved, and they committed fraud,” Dowd explained. See mark 10:25.
“My job is to be ahead of the news and be a lead steer…when I use my stock picking skills outside the realm of stock picking, I am called a conspiracy theorist.” See mark 6:45.
Dowd emphasized that he is not short on Pfizer or Moderna stock. He explained that he does not profit from their share prices dropping. He also points out that his predictions are not the cause of the steep declines as these occurred before he came out with this analysis. See mark 13:45.
“So we don’t need the mainstream media…And I want you to know – Wall Street is rallying to this – I’m getting lots of inquiries from former colleagues. Nothing will convince a sleeping public more than red stocks or collapsing stocks. My goal is to awaken the country by seeing something is going on. And Wall Street is AWAKE!” See mark 2:33.
If money is any indicator, Edward Dowd is correct that insurance will win a fight between the insurance and the vaccine industries. The life insurance market in the US is worth some $900 billion, while the vaccine market pales in comparison.
If someone is left holding the bag, it will not be the insurance industry, but it just might be you and me, the average citizen. However, there is one major caveat – if Edward Dowd succeeds in awakening the citizens, then they – the oligarchs – cannot get away with this – the Vaccine Fraud, the Great Reset, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Global Totalitarianism.
“There’s lots of people who got the jabs that didn’t understand what was going on. A lot of them are in the investment world. A lot of them are smart people – they were duped too. Some of these people that got the jab are doing the work on shorting these stocks because – you know, you can guess – because they are mad as hell – and you’ve awakened the sleeping giant known as Wall Street. And Wall Street is on the move. The smart money is moving first – as always there’s lead steers. Nothing gets going faster than a red momentum down-trending stock.” See mark 3:26.
Those of you who still think nothing’s going on, you don’t want to be – what I call – the bag holder. You don’t want to be the guy taking the fourth jab booster and holding these stocks (on their way) down – Moderna’s going to zero – I think Pfizer goes sub ten dollars once the lawsuits come out. ” See mark 4:06.
Dowd’s forecast can awaken not only Wall Street but the ordinary citizen. We are those sleeping giants of the world, those who can move mountains with the force of our stock sales and non-violent protests, the great silent majority who can remove dictators from power and elect new and fair leaders.
There is power in numbers, as the Canadian Truckers recently found. Courage is contagious as freedom convoys have sprung up everywhere. We hold the power if we choose to exercise it while we lose that power if we passively comply.
As this Freedom Trucker fireman said, “I don’t know what happened to our country. It’s disgusting. There’s nothing that’s going to be taken from us here today that they’re not going to take anyways – And people need to stand. With enough of us, they can’t do this.” See mark 1:58:10.
If enough of us speak out NOW, collectively, we have the power to not only end the mandates, but to restore ALL freedoms in Canada, Australia, the UK, Europe and the United States, and we will win the day. We will never consent to authoritarian rule.
We will not leave a world of slavery to our children and grandchildren. We will protest every single day until the government realizes who truly is in charge. We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The cure for 1984 remains 1776.
Edward Dowd cautions those who continue to slumber, “If you are long these two stocks, you are long mandates, you are long government control, and you are long the selling of your freedoms.” Let us get everyone on board the freedom train. See mark 15:16.
Catherine Austin Fitts With Dr. Mark Skidmore: How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculation? An Estimate Based on a Survey of the United States Population
[Video available at Solari Report BitChute channel.]
“[S]he lost her baby.”
“[O]ur daughter, her whole body shut down after 2nd shot. If her brother were not there she would not have survived.”
“She had a stroke within days of #2 Moderna vaccine. She has to use a walker and has speech issues. She was in her 40s. She is a registered nurse.”
“Cousin 47-stroke Cousin 28-blood clots Aunt 63-death Friend 41-death”
~ Covid-19 Survey, Appendix 3 (Respondents’ comments regarding the health condition of “the person they know best” who experienced an adverse event from a Covid-19 injection)
There is a wide range of opinion about the scale of injuries related to the Covid-19 injections. An unprecedented number of adverse events are being reported to official surveillance systems, but because these systems are known for their significant underreporting, it is difficult to know the true extent of injuries and fatalities. A well-designed survey of people’s beliefs and experiences can provide a useful estimate of what is actually happening on the ground.
The online survey, conducted in December 2021, included about 3,000 respondents representative of the general U.S. population, who described their own adverse-event-related experiences—and, equally importantly, the experiences of people in their social circles. Almost half of the respondents had received Covid shots themselves—with more than one in six experiencing health issues afterwards—and about one-fourth reported knowing others who had experienced significant post-injection health issues.
Dr. Skidmore notes that if one were to abide by the CDC’s count of “rare” injection-related fatalities (CDC acknowledges only nine Covid-vaccine-related deaths), then statistically, “in a survey of 3,000 people we should see ZERO (or close to zero) fatalities.” The survey provided a different picture, however. One in twelve respondents reported knowing someone who had died post-injection—a total of 55 fatalities—and the people described as likely vaccine-related deaths were, on average, 48 years old. Respondents also described numerous non-fatal but severe adverse events like heart-related issues, blood clotting, strokes, and paralysis.
Dr. Skidmore presented his survey results at the February 2022 Doctors for Covid Ethics Symposium III, and they are also available in his working paper titled “How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculations? An Estimate Based on a Survey of the United States Population” posted at Dr. Skidmore’s Lighthouse Economics website. The working paper’s Appendix 3 includes respondents’ verbatim descriptions of the adverse events witnessed in their social circles.
The central question raised by Dr. Skidmore’s survey is this: What if the survey results, rather than CDC numbers, reflect the true ratio for fatalities and serious injuries following Covid injections? This would yield an estimated 260,000 to 300,00 fatalities and 1.1 million potentially life-threatening or life-shortening serious injuries—estimates that must be taken seriously by anyone still debating the injections’ safety.
A few days ago — in my article The Test for Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, I republished my proof that the medical cartel has been routinely killing millions of people, with its treatments, for at least the past 20 years.
And when I say proof, I’m talking about clear mainstream research.
Virtually no one has taken those research citations and run with them, despite the fact that I’ve highlighted them for years. I’ve highlighted them in articles and interviews.
What’s the problem?
Apparently, even many “alternative” journalists and doctors are keeping a piece of their souls in the official prison of fake medicine and fake science. On purpose.
They want to hedge their bets. They want to go halfway, but not all the way.
They want to admit some things, but not other things.
So today, I’m posting another one of my “too hot to handle” pieces. I’ve published this article at least four times. Even doctors who oppose the COVID vaccines won’t pick up on it.
Why?
It’s too REAL, because it proves the RNA injections were DESIGNED to fail, to be useless, from the get-go.
That’s right.
And if you expose THAT, you burn the whole house down.
The vaccine establishment collapses.
No one will believe anything the establishment says about vaccines. Nor should they.
And many journalists and doctors of all stripes want to “protect the public” from THE TRUTH.
I don’t want to bury the truth. I’m not settling for half.
Buckle up—
I wrote and posted this piece while the clinical trials of the COVID vaccine were in progress. It reveals how and why those trials were constructed and designed to fail. They did fail.
The vaccine makers DESIGNED a series of clinical trials that, even on their own terms (“the virus is real, fear the virus”) were destined to be a complete flop.
PART ONE
Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.
They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.
“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”
“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”
“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”
“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
BOOM. THE CLINICAL TRIALS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO SHOW THE VACCINE COULD PREVENT SERIOUS ILLNESS. OR HOSPITALIZATION. OR DEATH.
The Times: “To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”
BOOM.
This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.
And I could stop this article right here and walk away. Done. Finished. Nothing more need be said.
And you the reader could walk away. OK, done. The clinical trials of the vaccine were never intended to prevent serious illness of any kind. Never intended to prevent hospitalizations or deaths. End of story.
Goodbye. Forget the vaccine. Why would anyone want to take it?
But if you want to know WHY the clinical trials were designed this way, and HOW the con was played, and why it was actually necessary to design the clinical trials to be useless, read on.
The whole vaccine house is ALREADY burned down, but I’m going to say a lot more. I’m going to burn the ashes.
First of all, make sure you understand the clinical trials of the RNA vaccines were only designed to show effectiveness in preventing “mild cases of COVID,” which nobody should care about, because mild cases (cough, fever, chills) naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.
Now let’s go deeper. Read the next section from the Times piece, and then I’ll make comments.
“The Moderna and AstraZeneca studies will involve about 30,000 participants each; Pfizer’s will have 44,000. Half the participants will receive two doses of vaccines separated by three or four weeks, and the other half will receive saltwater placebo shots. The final determination of efficacy will occur after 150 to 160 participants develop Covid-19…”
Now pay close attention. Here’s how it works. The vaccine companies are looking for a total of 150 mild COVID cases to occur, combined, in the two groups— those receiving the placebo and those receiving the vaccine. How would that happen? The researchers believe “the coronavirus is spreading everywhere” and it will pounce on some of the volunteers during the clinical trial.
Let’s say that, during the trial, 100 people receiving the placebo develop mild COVID-19 (cough, chills, fever), and only 50 people receiving the vaccine develop mild COVID.
The vaccine companies would say, “We just proved the vaccine is 50% effective in preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to do, in order to win emergency authorization from the FDA. Release the vaccine. Inject the world.”
The outcomes for ONLY 150 people equal “let’s shoot up seven billion people.”
That’s staggering.
But it gets even worse. The magic number of 150 COVID cases? How is a COVID case defined? The authors of the Times piece have the answer:
“In the Moderna and Pfizer trials, even a mild case of Covid-19 — for instance, a cough plus a positive lab test — would qualify and muddy the results. AstraZeneca is slightly more stringent but would still count mild symptoms like a cough plus fever as a case.”
But wait. The NY Times itself recently published an article stating that up to 90% of US COVID cases could very well be false positives—in other words, not cases at all. Why? Because the diagnostic PCR test, as it is performed by labs, is too sensitive. It registers “positive for COVID” when it shouldn’t.
So, in these vaccine clinical trials, the whole process of determining that “150 people developed COVID-19” is completely unreliable, useless, absurd, and nonsensical.
On the one hand, a positive PCR test is unreliable and means nothing. On the other hand, a cough and fever (“mild COVID”) are nothing to worry about, and don’t require a vaccine at all. We’re talking about 150 cases of “who cares.” That’s what the COVID vaccine is DESIGNED to prevent.
“So, Doctor, the magic number is 150 ‘who cares’ mild cases? That’s the number that will decide the immediate fate of the planet?”
“Of course.”
“And these 150 people, who you say develop mild COVID-19…no one should care, because those symptoms cure themselves, and no vaccine is needed.”
“Correct.”
“And come to think of it, the people receiving the vaccine in the clinical trials could develop symptoms indistinguishable from mild COVID-19, as a result of the effects of the vaccine.”
“Yes, that’s right.”
“But you’re very confident in the success of the vaccine.”
“Indeed.”
“Why?”
“I have to be confident. If we’re exposed as incompetent frauds, our bottom line will take a huge hit. And we’ll wind up in prison.”
PART TWO: THE DEVIOUS TRICK
Now I’m going to go over the vital information again, but this time I’m going to show you how…
The vaccine companies can use the fatal flaw in their protocol design to…
Actually win approval of their COVID vaccine.
Stick with me. This is big.
Only 150 people are needed to make the major clinical trials of a COVID vaccine look like a success.
Out of 30,000 volunteers in a trial, researchers are waiting for 150 people to “come down with COVID-19.” MILD cases. They assume this will happen because they believe the coronavirus is everywhere, and it’ll infect some of their volunteers.
Of course, their definition of a mild case of COVID-19 is meaningless. Cough plus fever, and a positive PCR test. The test spits out false positives like a rigged slot machine, and the visible mild symptoms could result from flu, polluted air, or too many candy bars.
Nevertheless, the researchers are waiting for a total of 150 people to “catch a mild case of COVID.” When that number is reached, everything stops.
Now comes the big moment. How many of those 150 COVID cases occurred in the group that received the vaccine, and how many in the group that received the placebo shot of salt water?
Let’s say only 50 COVID cases occurred in the vaccine group, and 100 in the placebo group. The researchers pop champagne corks. They say, “Look, the vaccine is 50% effective at preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to win emergency authorization from the FDA.”
BUT suppose 75 cases occurred in the vaccine group and 75 in the placebo group? No good. No good at all. No way to call the vaccine effective.
Now comes the “reshaping of the data.”
HERE WE GO.
The researchers say, “Wait. Thirty of the COVID cases in the vaccine group were REALLY just adverse reactions to the vaccine. They weren’t cases of COVID. You see, the vaccine can cause symptoms that are indistinguishable from mild COVID. Cough, fever, chills. ACTUALLY, there were only 30 cases of COVID in the vaccine group. There were 75 in the placebo group. That’s good enough. The vaccine IS effective. We’re golden. We can get emergency authorization from the FDA right now to shoot up everybody.”
Vaccine manufacturers HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG that they could pull this trick.
Why leave things to chance?
Why risk a few hundred billion dollars of profit on a random distribution of mild COVID cases among the volunteers in their clinical trials?
The definition of a mild COVID case is EXACTLY what the vaccine manufacturers needed. It enabled them to hatch a plan, to make sure they didn’t fail.
They could pawn off a MILD case of COVID as a reaction to the vaccine. They could fake that without causing ripples. The FDA would say, “The vaccine reactions aren’t serious. All right, no problem. We’ll approve this vaccine for emergency use.”
However…If the manufacturers designed their clinical trial protocol to prevent serious cases of COVID—-very serious pneumonia—then first of all, they would be waiting to see 150 cases of really sick people to occur among the volunteers.
That might never happen. In 100 years.
And second, if it did happen, and the manufacturers had to pull their devious switcheroo trick and blame the vaccine for some of these SERIOUS cases…
They would have to tell the FDA that their vaccine was causing life-threatening pneumonia; and the FDA, under a lot of scrutiny these days, would find it very difficult to overlook that.
FDA: “We can’t approve this vaccine. It could cause a few million cases of dire pneumonia…”
The vaccine companies didn’t make a titanic stupid mistake in their protocol design. In gearing the protocol to prevent MILD COVID cases, they did what they did on purpose. It allows them to “reshape their data” and win FDA emergency approval for their vaccine.
These companies have no intention of failing, starting over, and spending a year recruiting 30,000 new volunteers. They want success and money now. They want to win the race.
And they will win, if the truth isn’t known and shared widely.
The punchline:
Every “expert,” in August 2021, is instructed to say the vaccine is definitely protecting people against severe illness and hospitalization. This is their promotional message to the world.
“Yes, even if you’re vaccinated, you could become infected with the virus, you could develop COVID, and you could pass the virus to other people, BUT you must take the shot. It will protect you from becoming severely ill.”
As you can see from what I’ve written above, this is a straight-out lie.
It was always a fantastic lie, from the beginning of COVID vaccine development, because the design of the clinical trials had nothing to do with preventing serious illness.
—end of article—
OK, we’re back in the present now; 2022. Everything you’ve just read has been studiously ignored. Shoved to the side.
The vaccine was only designed, at best, to prevent mild cough, fever, chills. That’s it. A mild case of flu-like illness. Which cures itself.
That design was intentional. It allowed the vaccine makers to win approval for the injection.
If they had to wait around for 150 volunteers in the clinical trials to develop serious pneumonia, that could have taken years. Or forever.
The clinical trials proved nothing.
The vaccine, even in mainstream scientific terms, was worthless.
It was designed that way.
That’s a chunk of blockbuster news anybody with a half a brain should be shouting from the rooftops. Instead: SILENCE.
Why?
Again, because this blockbuster news burns the whole house down.
It takes down the whole vaccine establishment.
And there are lots of vaccine critics who DON’T WANT TO GO ALL THE WAY.
EVEN THOUGH THEY SHOULD.
They back away. They pretend they don’t know what they DO know.
They could shoot down, overnight, the whole basis for these COVID shots, and they would expose the vaccine that is maiming and killing of millions upon millions of people.
Knowing my regular readers can handle more than one major point in an article, I start with this: Justin Trudeau is not serving the interests of Canadians; he is loyal to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the brand of Globalism it represents.
Meaning: global governance; the submerging of nations in a scheme of external top-down control; the expansion of poverty; wall to wall surveillance; a currency reset; and other totalitarian transformations.
If you watch these two brief videos (here and here), you’ll see Klaus Schwab confirm, in Trudeau’s presence, the prime minister’s loyalty to the WEF, as well as the penetration of Trudeau’s cabinet with WEF agents.
Schwab, the head of WEF, also mentions a new dawn of entrepreneurs who lead corporations dedicated to social responsibility.
And THAT is a test for Schwab. Because he certainly backs major pharmaceutical companies. Do those businesses display social responsibility?
I’m not talking about their pricing of drugs or their equitable distribution of drugs. I’m talking about killing and maiming people with the drugs. Many people.
And so I return to citations I’ve published a number of times. By the way, virtually no one takes these devastating references and runs with them.
I can only conclude journalists and doctors who otherwise criticize medical policies don’t want to admit the medical cartel has a very long track record of destroying populations.
These journalists and doctors only want to cherry pick their targets. In fact, they support the overall performance of the medical system. Why? You would have to ask them.
Here, I’m testing Klaus Schwab. Does he really think he can get away with his talk about “social responsibility” and his simultaneous support of Pharma?
Buckle up—
ONE: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.”
The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:
Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.
Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.
The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”
So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed or maimed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, at home.
TWO: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”
Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.
I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust. She answered a resounding NO. She also said her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side.
THREE: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”
The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”
The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.
FOUR: “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.
Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)
FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine.
Medical crimes.
Medically caused deaths of friends, family members, loved ones, who are buried along with the truth.
No criminal investigations, no prosecutions, no guilty verdicts, no prison sentences.
But of course, you can believe everything leading lights of the US medical system tell you about COVID.
You can believe everything the press—who buries the truth about this medical holocaust—tells you about COVID.
Given the reports on medically caused death and maiming I’ve just cited and described in this article, it’s obvious that…
Leading medical journals around the world, which routinely publish glowing accounts of clinical trials of medical drugs…
Are spilling over with rank fraud, on page after page.
Indeed, here is a stunning quote from an editor who has quite probably read and analyzed more medical-drug studies than any doctor in the world:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
Compare that quote with one from “the father of COVID science,” Anthony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated:
“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about…If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”
They take things so seriously, they routinely publish glowing studies of medical drugs that are killing people in great numbers.
—So, Mr. Schwab, which is it? You support corporate social responsibility, and therefore you condemn, in the strongest possible way, the ongoing death-and-maiming count achieved by beloved pharmaceutical companies? Or you maintain your unwavering support for Pharma, and admit your pose of “social responsibility” is a complete fraud.
And to journalists and doctors who refuse to pick up the citations in this article and DO something with them, I ask: what’s holding you back? What’s been holding you back? I’ve been publishing and speaking about this information for more than 10 years.
What are you afraid of? Where do YOUR loyalties lie?
La Quinta Columna has shared with the world a very particular observation about the filament-like structures they have found when looking at vials of Pfizer vaccines under an optical microscope.
Dr. Sevillano noticed that within the particulate composition, there are some crystals that appear to be microcircuitry, but are actually some other material that would be a kind of food for the Morgellons-like filaments to grow. They don’t know what kind of crystals these are, but they continue in their research to try to unravel as many mysteries as possible.
Ricardo Delgado: So I’m going to move the microscope, and let’s go down. Here is the “hair.” See?
Dr. Sevillano: Here’s the hair. Yes.
Ricardo Delgado: Let’s see, I’m going to move it a little bit. There it is. See that you can even see… This sample is more dried out now. But look at the size of it.
Dr. Sevillano: And how it attracts the crystals. If you notice, you can see how it’s attracting them.
Ricardo Delgado: This one has been growing too. Here I’m going to focus it now to…
Dr. Sevillano: Let’s see if you find the generator pole. We have to look for the generator pole. Let’s see if we can see the deflection and the cubes generating around it. Let’s see if we can find the extreme.
Ricardo Delgado: This is incredible. Come on. Look at this. It’s still here. This is where I think it ends, right?
Dr. Sevillano: Yeah, it looks like this is where it ends.
Ricardo Delgado: This is where it ends. What happens is that in, here, there’s no longer any kind of aqueous suspension. I mean, it’s completely dried out.
Dr. Sevillano: It’s completely dried out. Maybe, for that reason, it has stopped… By not having… Maybe, it lacks something to… But look how it attracts all the material. How it’s full of crystals all over the place.
Ricardo Delgado: Surely, there must be more around here. Let’s see, I’m going to look around. Well, this is the content of the Pfizer vaccine. It’s crazy!
Dr. Sevillano: There… I’m beginning to think, Ricardo, that most of the stuff we see there is circuitry. And probably, there’s also material that we’re talking about that’s used for the growth of that.
Ricardo Delgado: Yes.
Dr. Sevillano: The ones that don’t have “drawings” or that don’t have printed circuitry, those ones have to be the material that uses that to grow. That’s all.
Ricardo Delgado: This is the edge of the drop, which is already dry. This is where it ends.
Dr. Sevillano: Yes, more mysteries that we understand nothing about in all this.
Ricardo Delgado: Look what’s here.
Dr. Sevillano: There’s another one. Yes. It’s quite huge.
Autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine prove the vaccine caused their deaths. Pathological findings suggest there may be a way to distinguish SARS-COV-2 infection-induced myo/pericarditis from vaccine-induced cardiac injury. Vaccine-induced heart injury can be sub-clinical, but how often?
Pathologists who examined the autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine concluded the vaccine caused the teens’ deaths.
The three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners, published their findings Feb. 14 in an early online release article, “Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose,” in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.
The authors’ findings were conclusive. Two teenage boys were pronounced dead in their homes three and four days after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose.
There was no evidence of active or previous COVID-19 infection. The teens had negative toxicology screens (i.e. no drugs or poisons were present in their bodies).
These boys died from the vaccine.
Histopathological examination of their cardiac tissue revealed an important new finding: Neither heart demonstrated evidence of typical myocarditis.
Instead, the authors found evidence of microscopic changes consistent with a different form of heart injury called toxic cardiomyopathy. They wrote:
“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy.”
The authors further explained what they observed under the microscope:
“Their histopathology does not demonstrate a typical myocarditis… In these two post-vaccination instances, there are areas of contraction bands and hypereosinophilic myocytes distinct from the inflammation.
“This injury pattern is instead similar to what is seen in the myocardium of patients who are clinically diagnosed with Takotsubo, toxic, or ‘stress’ cardiomyopathy, which is a temporary myocardial injury that can develop in patients with extreme physical, chemical, or sometimes emotional stressors.
“Stress cardiomyopathy is a catecholamine-mediated ischemic process seen in high catecholamine states in the absence of coronary artery disease or spasm. It has also been called ‘neurogenic myocardial injury’ and ‘broken heart syndrome.’”
The pathologists determined there was a different mechanism of heart injury at play in these two boys, distinct from a purely infectious process that would result directly from a viral infection like COVID-19.
This is an important finding. There may be a way to distinguish cardiac injury resulting from a SARS-COV-2 infection from cardiac injury where the vaccine predisposes the patient to stress cardiomyopathy before contracting COVID-19.
However, the authors are careful not to assume that cardiac injuries from COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines can always be sorted out under the microscope.
They explain that stress cardiomyopathy, or “broken heart syndrome,” may also occur in a rare hyperinflammatory state that is known to occur in COVID-19 infection as well:
“This post-vaccine reaction may represent an overly exuberant immune response and the myocardial injury is mediated by similar immune mechanisms as described with SARS-COV-2 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) cytokine storms.”
The authors admit this pathological finding may also occur as a result of MIS-C, a known complication of SARS-COV2 infection.
Learning more about this condition requires a biopsy of heart tissue, or in this case an autopsy. We know very little about the nature of myocarditis in people who are clinically stable because heart biopsies are not conducted on them and autopsies are rarely done on patients who die from COVID-19.
There still is no practical way of screening for cardiac injury beyond assessing symptoms.
Unfortunately, the two boys did not have symptoms of myocarditis (fever, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea) prior to their cardiac arrest and death. One complained of a headache and gastric upset which resolved. The other had no complaints.
This is extremely concerning. These boys had smoldering, catastrophic heart injuries with no symptoms.
How many others have insidious cardiac involvement from vaccination that won’t manifest until they get a serious case of COVID-19 or the flu? Or perhaps when they subject themselves to the physical stress of competitive sports?
These findings suggest a significant subset of COVID-19 deaths in the vaccinated could be due to the vaccines themselves.
Furthermore, it raises this question: How often does this condition exist in a latent form in vaccinated individuals?
The CDC believes the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis not significant
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents who get the COVID-19 vaccine is “extremely rare” and “most cases are mild.”
But those assurances conflict with the agency’s own data.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presented this disquieting information (see chart below) during its June 23, 2021 meeting convened specifically to address the risks of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 15-year-olds who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine:
This slide is important for two reasons.
First, the incidence of this potentially lethal condition is significantly higher in the vaccinated (“Observed” column) compared to the background rate (“Expected” column), especially in males in the 18- to 24-year-old age range.
In the 12- to 17-year-old male cohort, the risk of myo/pericarditis is at least 11 times higher than the background rate.
With more than 2 million doses administered at the time when these cases of myo/pericarditis were identified, we can be confident these data represent an undeniable safety signal.
The second reason this slide is important is this: The CDC is drawing directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a system specifically designed to monitor for safety signals when vaccines are administered to the public.
As of Feb. 15, the CDC continues to assure the public that “Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.”
In essence, the CDC is acknowledging that reports of deaths and other adverse events following vaccination exist in VAERS but do not comprise any risk because causality has not been verified.
Then why did the ACIP choose to accept VAERS as a legitimate source of information on myo/pericarditis in their calculations?
The CDC released its conclusions immediately following the ACIP meeting:
“The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination. Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment.”
But how do they know this?
One month after this comforting statement from the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted in this letter to Pfizer that the agency was not able to adequately assess the risk of myocarditis from Pfizer’s product:
“We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.
“Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.”
Commenting on the FDA’s letter, Dr. Meryl Nass said, “The FDA is saying that neither an analysis of the data in VAERS or of any of the other taxpayer-funded databases will provide sufficient assessment of the risk of this product.”
“This is a joke,” said Nass, adding:
“All this data, plus software, plus a team of analysts, and the FDA says it can’t assess the risk of myocarditis, despite identifying thousands of cases?
“Furthermore, unsaid, but implied by the FDA, is that if the FDA is incapable of assessing the risk of myocarditis despite thousands of reported cases, it cannot or will not be capable of assessing the other serious adverse events that have been reported in conjunction with COVID vaccines.”
If the FDA is not able to perform adequate surveillance of safety signals around vaccine-induced myocarditis, who will?
The FDA assigns this unenviable but essential task to Pfizer itself (again, from the FDA’S letter to Pfizer):
“Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies…”
Is myocarditis ‘extremely rare’ after COVID-19 vaccination?
As of Feb. 4, VAERS reported 495 cases of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds. VAERS data show that as of Feb. 10, there were 2,239 reported cases of myocarditis in people under the age of 30.
However, a widely cited CDC-sponsored study (Lazarus et al) concluded the incidence of adverse events is 10 to 100 times higher than are reported to VAERS.
More recent calculations estimate that adverse events are underreported by a factor of approximately 41.
From these estimates, we can conclude there may have been approximately 20,000 cases of myocarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds since Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization and was rolled out to this age group..
The VAERS data from June 11, 2021 from the table above show 132 cases of myo/pericarditis were observed in 2,039,000 doses given to 12- to 17-year-old males. This is approximately 6.5 cases in 100,000 doses.
This study from Hong Kong found the incidence of myo/pericarditis after two doses with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was 37 in 100,000. This incidence matches nearly exactly with findings from this study that used the Vaccine Safety DataLink (VSD) system (37.7 12-17 year olds per 100,000 suffered myo/pericarditis after their second dose). This is more evidence that significant underreporting is in play in the VAERS system.
Will most of these teens “recover on their own”? How many other vaccinated people have varying degrees of “broken heart” syndrome that remain asymptomatic, undiagnosed and unreported?
These new findings indicate that no one can answer these questions right now — especially not the CDC and the FDA.
If the FDA has admitted it cannot assess the risk of myocarditis using the surveillance systems in place, how then is the CDC able to assure us that the risk is low enough to continue to proceed with a vaccination campaign that now includes 5- to 11-year-old children?
The FDA has abdicated its responsibility for monitoring the safety of these vaccines to the vaccine manufacturers.
The CDC is using VAERS data in its own analyses while urging the public to discount all adverse events, including deaths, that appear in the very same database.
There isn’t any regulation happening here. Our regulatory agencies have become mouthpieces for the very industry they are tasked to oversee.
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.
My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.
In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.
For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.
Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.
I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.
AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive symptoms and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”
Several years after the publication of AIDS INC, I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?
Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?
And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?
The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:
How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?
These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.
Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”
Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.
Christine Johnson: Does HIV cause AIDS?
Eleni Papadopulos: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
CJ: Why not?
EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.
… CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?
EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]
CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.
EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.
CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?
EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.
… CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.
EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.
CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?
EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.
CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?
EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.
CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.
EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.
CJ: And what was that method?
EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?
EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.
CJ: But what about their pictures?
EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…
—end of interview excerpt—
If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.
Worse yet, it appears that Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, the two scientists credited with the discovery of HIV—as well as other elite researchers—were aware they weren’t employing correct methods.
And so…as I’ve reported, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, SARS-CoV-2, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done. And by large-scale, I mean: attempting to find and photograph the virus in a cohort of, say, 1000 people who are supposed to be “pandemic patients.” I’m NOT talking about one or two electron-microscope photos accompanying a study.
But even that isn’t the end of the story. There is one further potential limiting factor in virus research. I became aware of it about a year ago. Analysis of electron microscope findings is fraught with difficulty and doubt. Are scientists actually looking at what they think they’re looking at in these photos? I refer readers to the work of neurobiologist Harold Hillman, who concluded that researchers were, for the most part, looking at artifacts, not actual cells or entities within cells. Another suppressed controversy.
After more than 30 years of investigating medical research fraud, my general conclusion is, the deeper you go the stranger it gets. Or to put it another way, the worse it gets.
FDA Executive Officer Exposes Close Ties Between Agency and Pharmaceutical Companies: ‘Almost a Billion Dollars a Year Going into FDA’s Budget from the People we Regulate’
• FDA Executive Officer Chris Cole: “The drug companies, the food companies, the vaccine companies. So, they pay us hundreds of millions of dollars a year to hire and keep the reviewers to approve their products.”
• Cole on FDA fees: “Congress approved user fees for [the] FDA. Basically, we charge the industry millions of dollars in order to hire more drug reviewers and vaccine reviewers which will speed up the approval process. So, they [pharmaceutical companies] make more money.”
• Cole: “They [FDA] tone down the impact of the user fees on their operations because they know they’re dependent on the drug companies, and the vaccine companies, and these other companies for their agency to operate.”
• Cole on blowing the whistle: “There’s not an incentive to speak out in government, surprisingly. You would think there would be, but there’s not. It’s better just to just not say anything and just ignore it.”
• Cole on retaliation in government: “You’ll be marked from getting other jobs because another office is not going to want to hire you if you’ve spoken out about something, right or wrong. They don’t look at what you’ve spoken out about. They’re just not willing to- government’s about rocking the boat and they don’t want to- which is the problem I have with- one of the problems I have with government is, like, they don’t like people rocking the boat, for right or wrong, at all costs. They want to hire a safe person that can do the job but doesn’t necessarily- is a great hire.”
[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Feb. 16, 2022] Project Veritas published Part Two of its series on the FDA on Wednesday night which featured FDA Executive Officer, Christopher Cole, speaking about the inner workings of the agency including the FDA’s conflicts of interest, overspending, and why it’s hard for those within the agency to speak out on such abuses.
In the footage, Cole talks about the impact that pharmaceutical companies have on the agency including the process for approving drugs.
“A long time ago, Congress approved user fees for [the] FDA. Basically, we charge the industry millions of dollars in order to hire more drug reviewers and vaccine reviewers, which will speed up the approval process, so they make more money,” Cole says in the hidden camera footage.
He then reveals that the FDA tones down the impact that these user fees have on the agency’s operations because, “they’re dependent on the drug companies, and the vaccine companies and these other companies for their agency to operate.”
The incendiary footage, which features Cole talking about how the additional money the FDA brings in “gets banked” to be spent on “whatever you can, whether it’s right or wrong,’’ also features Cole discussing reasons why it’s difficult for anyone in government to speak out about practices he sees as “probably excessive.”
“I don’t think there’s enough people saying — they’re, like, ‘Look, that’s fine, but that’s not right. So, we’re not going to charge that.’ You don’t want to be that person. You’re not going to have a long shelf life in the agency if you’re always that person,” Cole said.
“There’s not an incentive to speak out in government, surprisingly. You would think there would be, but there’s not. It’s better just to just not say anything and just ignore it. The whistleblower, well, it’s high-profile whistleblower statutes and everything, that’s kind of ridiculous,” Cole said before adding “it’s better to just stay quiet and accept.”
Cole’s LinkedIn page lists him as an Executive Officer within the agency’s Countermeasures Initiatives, which plays a critical role in ensuring that drugs, vaccines, and other measures to counter infectious diseases and viruses are safe. He made these revelations on a hidden camera to an undercover Project Veritas reporter.
A spokesperson for FDA issued a statement yesterday saying, “The person purportedly in the video does not work on vaccine matters and does not represent the views of the FDA.”
This statement appears to contradict a phone call released Wednesday afternoon by Project Veritas wherein Cole reiterated, during the conversation with Project Veritas Founder and CEO, James O’Keefe, that he is “a manager in the office that helps oversee the approval of the COVID vaccines for emergency approval.”
See Part 1:
Project Veritas videos are available at Odysee and YouTube
Investment giants BlackRock and The Vanguard Group stand to benefit from their ownership stakes in most of the corporations that imposed COVID vaccine mandates, and in some of the technology firms developing vaccine passports.
After the U.S. Supreme Court last month froze the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for large private employers, some companies — including Boeing, General Electric and Starbucks — dropped plans to implement the mandate.
Others, based on guidance issued in 2020 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, left the mandates in place.
Most of the large employers that opted to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees, even though the Supreme Court ruled they didn’t have to, have something in common: BlackRock and The Vanguard Group have ownership stakes in them.
BlackRock and Vanguard, two of the world’s “Big Three” asset managers, also are among the top three shareholders of COVID vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — which means the two investment giants stand to benefit from these companies’ soaring profits and the resulting rise in those companies’ stock prices.
BlackRock and Vanguard don’t just benefit from sales of COVID vaccines. As it turns out, they also have ownership stakes in technology companies developing vaccine passports and digital wallets.
To put this figure into perspective, that amounts to more than three-fourths of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and more than triple the GDP of the European Union’s economic powerhouse, Germany.
In an August 2021 article about the two firms, Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out that, far from the appearance of competition promised by capitalism, BlackRock and Vanguard own significant shares in companies that ostensibly compete directly with each other, such as Google, Apple and Microsoft, or Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.
This influence extends to the media. BlackRock alone owns significant shares in supposed “competitors” such as Fox News, CBS, Comcast (NBC), CNN, Disney (ABC), Gannett (USA TODAY and 250 daily newspapers throughout the U.S.), Sinclair Media (whose television stations reach 72% of the American public), and the Graham Media Group (Slate, Foreign Policy).
BlackRock is also politically influential and well-connected, having been chosen by the Obama administration to buy up toxic assets following the 2007-2008 financial collapse.
In 2020, BlackRock received a no-bid contract from the U.S. Treasury Department to manage a $454 billion fund, under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), for businesses adversely impacted by the COVID lockdowns early that year. It wasn’t the first time BlackRock had been granted a no-bid contract from the federal government.
BlackRock along with other firms also is engaged in a real estate purchasing spree, buying up entire neighborhoods of single-family homes and converting them to rentals, driving up home prices by reducing supply on the marketplace.
BlackRock’s real estate strategy echoes the words of the World Economic Forum: “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”
This level of power and influence promoted none other than Bloomberg in 2020 to characterize BlackRock as the “fourth branch of government.”
BlackRock, Vanguard among top 10 stockholders in most companies mandating vaccines
It is unclear to what extent BlackRock and Vanguard are able to dictate the vaccination policies of the companies in which they hold a stake — but what is clear is that the two investment firms are among the top 10 stockholders in most of these companies.
Here’s a rundown of major U.S. employers that continue to mandate COVID vaccines for their employers, and these companies’ relationships with BlackRock and/or Vanguard (all ownership figures are accurate as of this writing):
Abbvie, a U.S.-based pharmaceutical company, mandated its employees either get vaccinated or undergo weekly tests and continue to follow anti-coronavirus measures. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.80% and 4.47%, respectively.
Albertsons, a grocery store chain, required its office employees to get vaccinated and offered its staff a $100 incentive to get the vaccine. BlackRock is its third-largest stockholder (0.85%), and Vanguard is the sixth largest (0.43%).
American Expressimposed a vaccine requirement for employees in its U.S. offices. Vanguard is its top stockholder (5.78%), while BlackRock is the third largest (3.68%).
Anthem Inc., a health insurer, requires employees to be fully vaccinated to physically enter the company’s offices, offered financial incentives to its workforce to get vaccinated and requires new candidates to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.38% and 4.68%, respectively.
AstraZenecarequires its U.S. employees and visiting clients to be vaccinated. Three of the top 10 mutual funds holding shares in AstraZeneca PLC are managed by Vanguard.
AT&T, in two separate policies, required company managers (by Oct. 11, 2021) and unionized employees (by Feb. 1), to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.58% and 5.10%, respectively.
Blackstone, an investment management company, mandated employees be vaccinated and boosted in order to return to the office. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 5.57% and 3.14%, respectively.
CapitalOnerequired employees in office-based positions to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (7.62%), and BlackRock is its fourth largest (4.79%).
Carhartt, a clothing and apparel company, issued a vaccine mandate for its employees. It is one of the few exceptions on this list, as it is privately owned.
Centene, a healthcare provider, required its workforce to be vaccinated, and gave employees up to 10 days’ paid leave and a $1,000 discount on health premiums as incentives. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (10.25%), while BlackRock is the fifth largest (4.34%).
Chevronissued a vaccination requirement for employees who travel internationally, expatriate employees, offshore workforce in the Gulf of Mexico and some onshore support personnel. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (7.98%) while BlackRock is the third-largest (4.57%).
Cigna, a healthcare and insurance company, required employees working remotely who visit the physical worksite to be vaccinated as of Sept. 7, 2021, and employees whose roles can only be performed onsite to be vaccinated as of Oct. 18, 2021, with an alternate option for two weekly COVID tests. Employees also were offered a $200 incentive to get vaccinated. Vanguard is Cigna’s largest stockholder (7.62%) while BlackRock is its fourth-largest (4.52%).
Ciscoallows only vaccinated “critical workers” to go to the office, and claims that 90% of its employees are vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.54% and 4.87%, respectively.
Citigrouprequired employees be vaccinated before returning to its offices, claiming it has reached 99% compliance. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 8.00% and 4.75%, respectively.
Columbia Sportswearrequired employees in its corporate headquarters to get vaccinated as of Feb. 1, placing those who didn’t comply on unpaid leave and commencing a termination process against them. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (5.39%) and BlackRock is the fourth largest (4.15%). Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle previously said his company was “thrilled” with the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate.
CVS Health has a no jab, no job policy, requiring corporate staff and employees who interact with patients to have been fully vaccinated as of Oct. 31, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.79% and 4.41%, respectively.
Deloitte, one of the Big Four accounting firms, requires its staff to be vaccinated. It is another exception in that it is a partnership firm and not publicly traded.
Delta Air Linesindirectly imposed a vaccine mandate for its employees, charging those who are not vaccinated a $200 monthly health insurance surcharge. CEO Ed Bastian previously said the company is “not opposed” to mandates and claimed 90% of Delta’s employees were vaccinated as of October 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two stockholders, at 10.15% and 4.63%, respectively.
DoorDashpermits only fully vaccinated employees to voluntarily return to the office, even as its office return is delayed indefinitely. Vanguard is its third-largest stockholder (3.26%), while BlackRock is the tenth largest (1.57%).
Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company, requires all employees be vaccinated. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (6.86%), while BlackRock is the third biggest (4.04%).
Emergent BioSolutions, a pharmaceutical company that produced the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and which attained infamy for losing a $600 million federal contract after millions of vaccine doses were ruined, requires employees be vaccinated. The company’s federal contract allowed it to keep a “reasonable quantity” of COVID vaccine doses for its “employees and critical subcontractors, and their respective immediate families.” Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 10.07% and 9.81%, respectively.
The Equinox Group, which owns SoulCycle and a chain of gyms, required employees to provide one-time proof of vaccination. It is an exception in that it is privately owned.
Facebook, now known as Meta, requires employees coming to work at any of its U.S. locations to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its top stockholder at 7.30%, while BlackRock is the third largest, at 4.28%.
The Ford Motor Companyimposed a vaccine mandate on its U.S. salaried employees. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.18% and 4.53%, respectively.
Frontier Airlinesrequired employees be vaccinated or regularly take COVID tests, as of Oct. 1, 2021. Vanguard is its fourth-largest stockholder (1.29%).
Gaprequired employees in its New York, Bay Area and Albuquerque hubs be vaccinated as of Sept. 7, 2021, and conducts weekly $1,000 drawings for vaccinated employees as an incentive. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (7.20%), while BlackRock is fifth largest (2.51%).
Gilead Sciences Inc., a pharmaceutical company, requires all workers and contractors to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second-largest and fifth-largest stockholders, at 7.96% and 6.30%, respectively.
Goldman Sachsrequires anyone entering its offices be fully vaccinated, as of Sept. 7, 2021, while those who are not vaccinated are obliged to work remotely. Booster shots are mandated for employees physically working in its offices, as well as for visitors, starting on Feb. 1. In January, the bank also required staff to receive twice-weekly COVID tests. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 7.34% and 4.76%, respectively.
Google, also known as Alphabet, Inc., in a policy described as “compassionate,” gave most of its unvaccinated employees in the U.S. a Jan. 18 deadline to get vaccinated or be placed on paid administrative leave for 30 days. After 30 days, those who are still not vaccinated are placed on unpaid leave for up to six months, after which they will be dismissed. In November 2021, some employees at Google circulated a manifesto opposing the company’s widened vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.21% and 4.32%, respectively.
Hasbroimplemented a vaccine requirement for its employees. Vanguard is its largest stockholder, at 11.01%, while BlackRock is the fourth-largest, at 4.69%.
Hawaiian Airlinesrequired its U.S. workers to be vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021. On Feb. 2, a judge denied a bid by seven Hawaiian Airlines employees to block the company’s vaccine mandate. BlackRock and Vanguard are their two biggest stockholders, at 14.41% and 9.71%, respectively.
Hersheyimplemented a vaccine mandate for its salaried employees that went into effect Oct. 4, 2021. Recently, the company announced a “small number” of employees who did not get vaccinated or receive an exemption were “separated from the company.” Frontline employees received four hours’ pay as an incentive to get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are the company’s two biggest stockholders, at 8.86% and 6.93%, respectively.
Humana, a healthcare company, enacted a no-jab, no-job policy for its employees, requiring them to be vaccinated as of Oct. 22, 2021. The company offered employees rewards points as part of an existing employee incentive program to encourage them to get vaccinated. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder at 7.39%, while BlackRock is the fourth-largest, at 4.32%.
IBM, the developer of New York State’s digital vaccine passport, the Excelsior Pass, allowed only fully vaccinated U.S. employees to physically return to the office, as of Sept. 7, 2021, and mandated employees be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8, 2021, or face an unpaid suspension. In December 2021, some IBM employees circulated an open letter questioning the company’s vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are IBM’s biggest and third-biggest stockholders, at 7.94% and 4.87%, respectively.
Intel employees were given until Jan. 4 to get vaccinated or apply for an exemption, while employees who would not get vaccinated and who were not granted an exemption were to be placed on unpaid leave in April. This policy was, however, recently “paused.” Vanguard and BlackRock are Intel’s two largest stockholders, at 7.94% and 5.33%, respectively.
Jefferies, a financial services company, allows only vaccinated individuals into its physical offices and outside company events, while non-vaccinated employees can continue working remotely. The company recently claimed over 95% of its global workforce has been vaccinated and said boosters would soon be required as part of the company’s “JefVaxPass strategy.” Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 8.84% and 6.46%, respectively.
Johnson & Johnson enacted a no-jab, no-job policy, and required all of its employees and contractors to be vaccinated, as of Oct. 4, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 8.46% and 4.67%, respectively.
KraftHeinz enacted a no-jab, no-job policy for its U.S. employees and implemented a vaccine mandate as of January. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (4.21%), while BlackRock is the fourth largest (2.43%).
Lyftrequired corporate employees physically working in or entering its offices, but not its drivers, to furnish proof of vaccination to enter offices, as of Aug. 2, 2021. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (7.18%), while BlackRock is the fourth biggest (3.47%).
McDonald’srequired its corporate workforce, but not its restaurant-level workers, to get vaccinated. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (8.33%), while BlackRock is the third largest (4.56%).
MGM Resorts Internationalrequires salaried employees and all new-hires be fully vaccinated even if working remotely, while unvaccinated hourly employees can provide weekly negative COVID tests. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 8.76% and 3.96%, respectively.
Microsoftrequired proof of vaccination for all employees, vendors and guests entering its physical locations in the U.S. as of September 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.75% and 4.35%, respectively.
Morgan Stanleyrequired employees to get vaccinated before returning to its New York offices, and required staff to disclose their vaccination status by July 1, 2021. The policy was extended to contingent workers, clients, and visitors visiting its New York City and Westchester County, New York locations, as of July 12, 2021. As of August 2021, the company claimed 90% of its employees were vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second- and third-biggest stockholders, at 6.27% and 3.81%, respectively.
NBCUniversalrequired U.S.-based workers returning to the office be fully vaccinated and provide details about their vaccination status, while a full return to the office has been indefinitely postponed. NBCUniversal is fully owned by Comcast, whose largest and third-largest stockholders are Vanguard (8.26%) and BlackRock (4.12%). Comcast, in turn, has required all of its employees to get vaccinated.
Netfliximplemented a vaccine requirement for its U.S. offices and filming locations. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.14%), while BlackRock is the sixth largest (4.03%).
The New York Times Companyrequires proof of vaccination for employees who voluntarily wish to return to the office, and is eyeing a full return to the office in the first quarter of this year. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 9.25% and 7.32%, respectively.
Nikerequires office-based employees be vaccinated, and in January made headlines for firing a vaccinated employee who refused to furnish proof of vaccination to a third-party verification service hired by the company. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.88% and 4.62%, respectively.
Novartis, a pharmaceutical company, requires U.S. staff to be vaccinated. Vanguard mutual funds are four of the top 10 mutual funds holding stock in Novartis AG.
Pfizerrequired all U.S. workforce and contractors to get vaccinated or participate in weekly COVID testing. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.77%), while BlackRock is its third largest (4.63%).
Pioneer Natural Resourcesmandated vaccination for its new-hires and offered a $1,000 incentive to employees who get vaccinated. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (9.53%), while BlackRock is the fifth largest (4.57%).
PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) required staff visiting any physical office or client location to be fully vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021, and introduced a work-anywhere policy for its U.S. employees, allowing them to work remotely in perpetuity. PwC is an exception in that it is not publicly traded — it is the fourth biggest privately owned company in the U.S.
Roche, a pharmaceutical and medical equipment company, requires U.S. employees be vaccinated. The company is largely family-owned, but Vanguard mutual funds are two of the five largest mutual funds holding shares in Roche Holding AG.
Salesforce, a cloud software provider, requires office employees be vaccinated, but allows the majority of its global workforce to choose remote work. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.07%); BlackRock is the fourth largest (4.28%).
TJX, the parent company of retail chains such as HomeGoods, Marshalls and T.J. Maxx, required U.S. “home and regional office associates” be fully vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021, and mandated a booster shot by Feb. 1. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.17%), while BlackRock (4.13%) is the third largest.
T-Mobile USannounced it will fire corporate employees who are not fully vaccinated by April 2. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 3.28% and 2.38%, respectively.
Twitterrequires employees be vaccinated and demonstrate proof of vaccination prior to returning to the company’s offices in San Francisco and New York City. In May 2020, the company announced an indefinite work-from-home option for its workforce. Vanguard (8.35%) and BlackRock (4.49%) are its second- and third-largest stockholders, respectively.
Tyson Foodsmandated vaccination for its employees, and in Nov. 2021, announced 96% of its workforce was vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 11.38% and 4.91%, respectively.
Uberrequires U.S. office staff be vaccinated in order to return to the office, but did not extend this requirement to its drivers. Vanguard (4.07%) is its second-largest stockholder, while BlackRock (2.50%) is the fourth largest.
United Airlines implemented a no-jab, no-job policy and required employees be vaccinated five weeks after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fully approved a COVID vaccine or five weeks after Sept. 20, 2021, whichever came first. In December 2021, a court declined a bid by some United employees to block the company’s vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are the airline’s biggest and third-biggest stockholders, at 10.16% and 4.28%, respectively.
UPSrequired office workers in some of its U.S. locations get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 8.39% and 4.60%, respectively.
Valerorequired new hires at its Louisiana and Texas refineries to be vaccinated, as of Oct. 1, 2021. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (10.98%), while BlackRock (5.58%) is its third biggest.
Verizonrequired non-union employees — representing most of its workforce — provide proof of vaccination as of Dec. 8, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 7.44% and 4.71%, respectively.
ViacomCBSrequires all of U.S.-based employees working onsite during the company’s “Yellow Phase” be fully vaccinated, while the company is “still assessing” whether this mandate will be extended into its “Green Phase,” when most staff will physically return to the office. Vanguard (10.29%) is its largest stockholder, while BlackRock (5.03%) is third largest.
Walgreensrequired employees in the company’s U.S. support offices be fully vaccinated by Sept. 30, 2021, or enroll in a COVID testing program. Vanguard is the top stockholder of the Walgreens Boots Alliance (6.61%), while BlackRock is third largest (4.22%).
Walmartimplemented a no-jab, no-job policy for corporate staff, but not for store or warehouse employees. It has, however, offered a $150 incentive to store and warehouse workers to get vaccinated. The company claimed the “overwhelming majority” of its employees who were mandated to get vaccinated, have done so. Notably, the company enforced a vaccine mandate for shoppers in Canada, generating criticism. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (4.31%), while BlackRock is the third largest (2.30%).
The Walt Disney Companyrequired much of its U.S. workforce be vaccinated, though the company was obliged to pause this policy for its Florida employees after state lawmakers barred employers from requiring workers to get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are Disney’s two biggest stockholders, at 7.15% and 4.24%, respectively.
Warner Media, a subsidiary of AT&T, required salaried and non-union U.S. employees to get vaccinated before returning to the office in September 2021, while proof of vaccination is required to enter a WarnerMedia office building.
The Washington Postrequires all employees, including new employees, to provide proof of vaccination, implementing a no jab, no job policy. The newspaper is owned by Nash Holdings LLC, which is fully owned by Jeff Bezos, founder and executive chairman of Amazon, whose two largest stockholders are Vanguard (6.19%) and BlackRock (3.51%).
What about the two asset management companies, BlackRock and Vanguard?
Of the two, only BlackRock has implemented a vaccine mandate, allowing vaccinated staff to return to the office in July 2021.Vanguard has not implemented a mandate, but offered a $1,000 incentive to its employees to encourage them to get vaccinated. Vaccine passport technology — another way BlackRock, Vanguard profit from vaccines BlackRock and Vanguard also are stakeholders in tech companies involved in the development of digital vaccine passports or “digital wallets” and technology that can track and allocate “personal carbon allowances.”
These companies include:
Apple, which is collaborating with several U.S. states to make official documents such as drivers’ licenses and medical records available digitally via Apple Wallet. Vanguard is its top shareholder (7.35%) and BlackRock is its third-biggest (4.12%).
Mastercard, which supports the Good Health Pass vaccine passport initiative that is also backed by the ID2020 alliance, and promoted technology that can be embedded into the DO Card, a credit/debit card that can keep track of one’s “personal carbon allowance.” Its top two stockholders are Vanguard (6.82%) and BlackRock (4.13%).
In turn, Mastercard is the fifth largest investor in Doconomy, a Swedish “FinTech” firm that is also heavily involved in the development of the DO Card.
Doconomy, in turn, collaborates with another Swedish “FinTech” firm, Klarna, in providing 90 million customers with “carbon footprint insights” based on their Doconomy transactions. While Klarna is privately held, its top investors include BlackRock and Visa.
Oracle is a backer of the SMART Health Card, which is gaining prominence in the U.S. as a de facto national digital vaccine ‘passport’, and also is a provider of cloud services to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its top two stockholders are Vanguard and BlackRock, with 5.16% and 2.99%, respectively.
Thales Group, is a founding member of the Security Identity Alliance, which is a stakeholder in the UN’s Legal Identity Agenda Task Force that has set the establishment of digital identification for all by 2030. Thales Group has also developed a “smart health card” and digital ID wallet technology.
In podcaster Joe Rogan’s interview last month with Dr. Robert Malone — the interview that triggered the exodus of musicians and others from Spotify — Malone described companies like BlackRock and Vanguard as “large massive funds that are completely decoupled from nation states” and that “have no moral core … no moral purpose,” their only purpose being a “return on investment.”
As it turns out, BlackRock and Vanguard — and Moderna — also have ties to Spotify.
Other major Baillie Gifford holdings — including some companies listed above among those mandating COVID vaccines — include Tesla (second highest at 6.3% of its portfolio’s value), Amazon (fourth highest at 3.8%), Spotify (seventh highest at 2.8%), Netflix (ninth highest at 2.6%), Meta (12th, 1.4%), Microsoft (16th, 1.3%), Anthem (21st, 1.2%), Alphabet Inc. (22nd, 1.1%), BioNTech (29th, 0.9%), Mastercard (39th, 0.6%), DoorDash (45th, 0.6%), Salesforce (53rd, 0.5%), and Lyft (93rd, 0.2%).
Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal (which terminated the contracts of nonprofits opposed to vaccine mandates) and a Facebook board member, also is a co-founder of Palantir and serves on its board of directors.
In turn, the top stockholders of BioNTech, Pfizer’s partner in the development of its COVID vaccine, include Baillie Gifford (biggest stockholder, 2.69%) and BlackRock (seventh highest, 0.59%), while Vanguard manages the top mutual fund with holdings in BioNTech (0.92%), and Baillie Gifford the ninth biggest (0.23%).
Tangled web of corporate connections raises host of questions
BlackRock and Vanguard are poised to continue expanding— as far back as 2017, Bloomberg predicted that by 2028, these two companies would be managing $20 trillion worth of investments.
The size and scope of the firms’ investments raise questions about how much influence BlackRock and Vanguard can wield over the formulation of corporate policies by the companies in which the two firms are heavily invested.
This ever-growing influence has led some analysts to describe the two firms as “kingmakers,” arguing their growing voting share in an increasing number of corporations would “hand them a de-facto veto on all major corporate decisions by 2040.
To what extent do companies mandating COVID vaccines have the best interest of their employees in mind? Or are these companies implementing policies under the guise of “protecting” employees, when in fact they are more concerned about appeasing major investors?
What else might these companies do, if “encouraged” in some way by major stockholders?
Moreover, do mandatory (or strongly encouraged) vaccination policies reflect the worldview of funds such as BlackRock and Vanguard, and their managers — in much the same way major corporations have embraced purportedly “green” policies which only barely cloak potentially totalitarian restrictions on civil liberties, such as “personal carbon allowances” and digital “vaccine passports”?
The answers may lie, in part, in the words of BlackRock CEO and chairman, Larry Fink.
In his 2022 annual letter to CEOs, Fink wrote that “employees are increasingly looking to their employer as the most trusted, competent and ethical source of information — more so than government, the media and NGOs.”
Fink said, “workers demanding more from their employers is an essential feature of effective capitalism” — an interesting viewpoint given that the BlackRock and Vanguard strategy to control as many corporations as possible, including competing ones, would seem to contradict the principles of capitalism, competition, and a free market.
Fink also warned that “companies not adjusting to this new reality and responding to their workers do so at their own peril.”
In other words, employees and workers of companies that have imposed vaccine mandates should take comfort in such policies, as their employer appears to know what’s best for them — at least according to Fink.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Despite a 28% decrease in 0- to 5-year-old U.S. children taking psychostimulants since 2017, new changes to an international mental disorders manual could revert this and put them at risk. Watchdog relaunches PSAs for parents warning “Childhood is not a mental disorder.”
by CCHR International, The Mental Health Industry Watchdog
February 14, 2022
CCHR International warns there could be an increase in the number of children and adolescents prescribed powerful, addictive stimulants for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with the new insurance billing codes released this month in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Mental Disorders Section. For years, CCHR International, based in Los Angeles, has conducted a “Fight for Kids” public awareness campaign about the risks of childhood and teen behavior being mis-diagnosed as disorders and “medicated.”
However, changes to ICD-11 reinforce this and as such, it relaunched two Public Service Announcements (PSAs) reminding parents that “Childhood is not a Mental Disorder.”
CCHR welcomes a 28% decrease in U.S. children aged 0-5 years old being prescribed psychostimulants between 2017 and 2020. According to the IQVia Total Patient Tracker database that CCHR obtained for 2017 and 2020, there were 80,235 children in this age group in 2017 prescribed stimulants compared to 58,091 in 2020. Overall, for the 0-17 age group, there was a 14% decrease in the numbers taking psychostimulants.
The U.S. Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, being updated in March 2022) and ICD-11 have redefined and categorized ADHD as a “neurodevelopmental disorder,” making it appear to be a neurological or brain-based physical disease when scientific evidence does not substantiate this.
Dr. Fred Baughman, Jr., a retired pediatric neurologist and author of The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes “Patients” of Normal Children, said that psychiatric associations representing ADHD as a biologic abnormality of the brain is “neurobiological propaganda” because “psychiatry has never validated ADHD as a biologic entity.”[1]
Prof. Allen Frances, the former Chairman of the DSM-IV Task Force said that the DSM-IV, published in 1994, already created “false epidemics” of ADHD.[2] He wrote that twenty years later, “The rate of ADHD in the U.S. has tripled to a ridiculously inflated 11%. Sales of ADHD medications are approaching an obscenely profitable $10 billion a year.” Frances was forthright about how diagnoses such as ADHD are determined: “There are no objective tests in psychiatry—no X-ray, laboratory or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder….”[3] Inclusion of a disorder in the DSM is by consensus vote.
As such, the fact that ICD-11 and DSM-5 claim ADHD is neurobiological is misleading for parents who could erroneously believe that their child has a faulty brain requiring “medication” rather than an issue which can be handled with behavioral, dietary and educational solutions. Dr. Baughman adds that children have also been led to “believe they have something wrong with their brains that makes it impossible for them to control themselves without a pill.”[4] In saying that, he is not saying that children do not sometimes have trouble with their behavior, focusing, or their emotions; it just simply isn’t neurobiological.
March 21 this year marks the 22nd anniversary of 14-year-old Matthew Smith’s death from a cardiac arrest while skateboarding. Oakland County (Michigan) Medical Examiner Ljubisa Dragovic determined that the skateboarding did not kill Matthew but rather the damage done to his heart from 10 years of taking prescribed methylphenidate, an ADHD psychostimulant that caused a “chronic change of the heart muscle and the small blood vessels in the heart.”[5] Michael’s tragic death was part of the impetus that started CCHR’s Fight for Kids campaign and PSAs.
In 2014, researchers from the University of Delaware and Drexel University College of Medicine reviewed research on the effects of psychostimulants like methylphenidate. They found the drug can impact the brain’s plasticity, interfering with a person’s ability to plan, switch between tasks, and be overall flexible in their behaviors. For a drug that’s supposed to offer better mental performance, they found that the long-term effects appear to do the opposite.[6]
“All proposed ADD and ADHD treatments” are “aimed at modifying observable behaviors rather than in treating their underlying causes,” say other researchers, including Dr. Howard Glasser, writing in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.[7]
In his last interview before his death in 2009, Dr. Leon Eisenberg, the “scientific father of ADHD” and a leader in child psychiatry for more than 40 years, admitted “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.”[8] The symptoms are so common that anyone could believe they have ADHD: fails to give close attention to details or may make careless mistakes; work is often messy or disorganized; has problems staying focused on tasks or activities; fails to complete schoolwork, chores or other duties; often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat; often talks excessively and interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., cuts into conversations).
The consequences of the drugs prescribed to quell such symptoms are telling: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reports methylphenidate can lead to addiction and “psychotic episodes, violent behavior and bizarre mannerisms have been reported” with its use.[9] The manufacturer admits it is a drug of dependency.[10] Suicide is a major complication of withdrawal from it and similar amphetamine-like drugs.[11] FDA also warns of the risks of heart-related problems.
CCHR says the direction ICD-11 and DSM-5 have taken is not in sync with current thinking. Former United Nations Special Rapporteur Dainius Pūras, M.D., in a June 2021 interview with Psychiatric Times, said there is too much reliance upon “the biomedical model and biomedical interventions” for people with mental health or behavioral issues and this represents a “biased use of knowledge and evidence.” In 2017, he also called for a revolution in mental health care around the world, writing: “There is now unequivocal evidence of the failures of a system that relies too heavily on the biomedical model of mental health services, including the front-line and excessive use of psychotropic medicines, and yet these models persist.”[12]
CCHR brought their concerns about the worldwide mass diagnosing of ADHD and prescribing of stimulants to the attention of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which responded with hearings and a recommendation for the establishment of a system for “monitoring of the excessive use of psychostimulants to children.” It also said that governments should “take the necessary measures to prevent any pressure on children and parents to accept treatment with psychostimulant drugs.”[13]
ICD-11 says it changed the category under which ADHD has been placed from “hyperkinetic” to “neurodevelopmental disorders” so that it is not equated as being “disruptive behavior,” but conveys the idea that a child has a deficiently developed brain disease, which experts say it is not. [14]
Child and adolescent video-gamers will also be a potential market under ICD-11 with “gaming disorder.”[15] This has been included in a newly added diagnostic grouping under ICD-11 called “disorders due to addictive behaviors,” again not in response to any scientific evidence but “to global concerns about the impact of problematic gaming, especially the online form.”
As for nebulous “conduct disorders,” such as oppositional defiant disorder and conduct‐dissocial disorder, these are grouped into a new label, “disruptive behavior and dissocial disorder.” ICD‐11 also expanded these from being limiting to children to include across the lifespan.[16] Disorders are no longer grouped by age but reflect a continuous lifespan approach[17]—anyone can be labeled and stigmatized.
Moreover, ICD‐10’s so-called gender identity disorders have been renamed as “gender incongruence” (the condition of not matching or being in agreement) in the ICD‐11 and moved from the mental disorders chapter to the new “sexual health chapter,” meaning that a transgender identity is no longer to be considered a mental disorder.[18] Under DSM, gender identity was called gender dysphoria (unwanted emotional state).[19]
Such arbitrary and capricious diagnosing has come under earlier criticism when in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association committee members voted—5,584 to 3,810—to delete homosexuality as a mental disorder from DSM after gay activists picketed the APA conferences.[20] As The Atlantic reported, “It’s not always that explicit, and the votes are not public. In the case of the DSM-5, committee members were forbidden to talk about it, so we’ll never really know what the deliberations were. They all signed non-disclosure agreements.”[21]
Lawrence Stevens, a former Assistant District Attorney in California, commented: “If mental illness were really an illness in the same sense that physical illnesses are illnesses, the idea of deleting homosexuality or anything else from the categories of illness by having a vote would be as absurd as a group of physicians voting to delete cancer or measles from the concept of disease.”[22]
The late Dr. Keith Conners, who “put ADHD on the medical map,” conducted the first formal trials on the use of methylphenidate. But in 2013, when he was asked to address the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders, he was so appalled at how many children had been saddled with ADHD, he called it “a national disaster of dangerous proportions.”[23]
The ICD-11 and DSM-5 update can only exacerbate the disaster. Parents, pediatricians, family doctors, and educators should be informed that ADHD is not a proven neurobiological disorder. The behavioral symptoms could be representative of any normal childhood behavior. In an article that has been widely quoted in literature, James T. Webb, Ph.D., reviewed the symptoms of ADHD and noted “almost all of these behaviors are found in bright, talented, creative, gifted children.”[24] Dr. Mary Ann Block, author of No More ADHD advises to look for and treat the underlying causes; don’t just cover symptoms with drugs but “find the cause and fix the problem.”[25]
All of which adds up to: Childhood, including ADHD, is not a mental disorder.
References:
[1] Samantha Gluck, “Does ADHD Exist?” Healthy Place, interview with Dr. Fed Baughman, https://aws.healthyplace.com/adhd/articles/does-adhd-exist
[2] “Watchdog Group Alerts Parents and Teachers About Gifted Children Being Mislabeled ‘ADHD’ and Given Stimulant Drugs,” CCHR International, 9 Aug. 2017, https://www.cchrint.org/2017/08/09/watchdog-group-alerts-parents-and-teachers-about-gifted-children-being-mislabeled-adhd-and-given-stimulant-drugs/, citing: Allen Frances, “DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble,” Psychology Today, 2 Aug. 2011, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201108/dsm-5-will-further-inflate-the-add-bubble
[3] Allen Frances, “Most Active Kids Don’t Have ADHD,” Psychology Today, 11 Mar. 2014, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/saving-normal/201403/most-active-kids-don-t-have-adhd; Allen Frances, “Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis,” Psychology Today, 2 June 2010, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201006/psychiatric-fads-and-overdiagnosis
[4] Fred A. Baughman, Jr., MD, “Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 269, No. 18, 12 May 1993, p. 2369
[5] Caroline Kern, “Death of 14-year-old Caused by Ritalin,” 14 Apr. 2000, http://www.drugfreechild.org/article/Death_of_14-year-old_Caused_by_Ritalin.html
[6] “Bad News For Ivy Leaguers: ADHD Drugs Hurt Your Memory,” TIME Health, 13 May 2014, http://time.com/97448/bad-news-for-ivy-leaguers-adhd-drugs-hurt-your-memory/
[7] Dr. Howard Glasser, et al., “The Online Nurtured Heart Approach to Parenting: A Randomized Study to Improve ADHD Behaviors in Children Ages 6–8,” Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 22, 1 Nov. 2020
[8] “New Federal Statistics Show Teen Overdose Deaths From ADHD & Anti-Anxiety Drugs On The Rise,” CCHR International, 22 Aug. 2017, https://www.cchrint.org/2017/08/23/teen-overdose-deaths-from-adhd-anti-anxiety-drugs-on-the-rise/, citing: “Father of ADHD calls himself a liar,” WND, 23 May, 2013 http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/father-of-adhd-calls-himself-a-liar/#SAe7LssguLIzLtry.99
[9] “Methylphenidate (A Background Paper),” U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Oct. 1995, p. 16
[11] DSM-III-R, (American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., 1987), p. 136
[12] “UN Special Rapporteur Dainius Pūras Addresses Psychiatry’s Global Coercion & Crisis,” CCHR International, 7 June 2021, https://www.cchrint.org/2021/06/07/un-special-rapporteur-dainius-puras-addresses-psychiatrys-global-coercion-crisis/, citing: Awais Aftab, MD, “Global Psychiatry’s Crisis of Values: Dainius Pūras, MD,” Psychiatric Times, 3 June 2021, https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/global-psychiatry-crisis-values; “World needs ‘revolution’ in mental health care – UN rights expert,” United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 6 June 2017, https://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21689
[14] Michael B. First, Steven H. Hyman, Wolfgang Gaebel, “Innovations and changes in the ICD‐11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders,” et al., World Psychiatry, 2 Jan. 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6313247/
[15] Tolu Ajiboye, “3 Major Changes to Look for with ICD-11,” Pollen, 9 Oct. 2019, https://www.simplepractice.com/blog/3-major-changes-to-look-for-with-icd-11/
[17] “ICD 11 Takes Centre Stage,” Journal of Psychiatry Reform, 21 June 2019, https://journalofpsychiatryreform.com/2019/06/21/icd-11-takes-centre-stage/
[21] Hope Reese, “The Real Problems with Psychiatry,” The Atlantic, 2 May 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/the-real-problems-with-psychiatry/275371/
[23] “New Federal Statistics Show Teen Overdose Deaths From ADHD & Anti-Anxiety Drugs On The Rise,” CCHR International, 22 Aug. 2017, https://www.cchrint.org/2017/08/23/teen-overdose-deaths-from-adhd-anti-anxiety-drugs-on-the-rise/, citing: Gareth Cook, “Big Pharma’s Manufactured Epidemic: The Misdiagnosis of ADHD,” Scientific American, 11 Oct. 2016, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-pharma-s-manufactured-epidemic-the-misdiagnosis-of-adhd; “ADHD: the statistics of a ‘national disaster’” Significance, Dec. 2016 https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00979.x
[24] James T. Webb, Misdiagnosis And Dual Diagnoses Of Gifted Children And Adults: Adhd, Bipolar, Ocd, Asperger’s, Depression, And Other Disorders, (Great Potential Press Inc., Scottsdale, AZ, 2004), p. 195
A White House email, obtained on behalf of ICAN, shows Facebook, Merck, and the CDC Foundation, whose corporate partners includes Pfizer, have formed an alliance “to use social media and digital platforms to build confidence in and drive uptake of vaccines.” No conflict there.
On August 12, 2021, ICAN, through its attorneys, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for communications between White House staff and Facebook, Google, and YouTube. In response to this request, ICAN received a June 15, 2021 email sent by Facebook’s then-Public Policy Manager, Nkechi “Payton” Iheme, to several White House employees.
In it, Iheme announces a new initiative, the “Alliance for Advancing Health Care,” between Facebook and several major companies and organizations, including Merck, the Vaccine Confidence Project, the Sabin Vaccine Institute, and the CDC Foundation. Significantly, one of the CDC Foundation’s corporate partners is Pfizer. In the email, Iheme explains that the Alliance is “focused on advancing public understanding of how social media and behavioral sciences can be leveraged to improve the health of communities around the world” and states that its first project is to “provide grants to researchers and organizations for projects that explore how to use social media and digital platforms to build confidence in and drive uptake of vaccines.” Facebook announced this new initiative on June 9, 2021 here.
The conflict of interest is astonishing. This email shows without a doubt that, through the CDC Foundation created “to support the [CDC’s] work,” the federal government, which is in charge of ensuring the safety of vaccines, has teamed up with Big Pharma and Big Tech to push a liability-free product on the world, while attempting to stomp out anyone who questions this arrangement.
Just as the pharmaceutical companies will never rest when it comes to promoting and selling their vaccine products, and the federal government will not rest in its efforts to assist them, we will never rest in exposing the truth regarding these products or in demanding full transparency and full informed consent for any and all vaccines.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: In the following video, Spacebusters uses images to artistically highlight & add clarity to an essential part of a conversation (Merritt Medical Hour — February 2, 2022) between Dr. Lee Merritt & Dr. Tom Cowan. See the entire interview at Merritt Medical Hour on BrighteonTV.
To those of us that know that virology’s “isolation” and genomic sequencing methodologies are anti-scientific, it is still interesting to see the proponents of the nonsense offer official explanations about what they are up to.
Here in New Zealand, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) is responsible for some of the alleged isolation experiments and genomic sequencing of the imaginary “SARS-CoV-2” particle, that they claim is responsible for the clinically undefined illness “COVID-19”. On the 9th of February 2022, they responded to questions surrounding the methodology of their cell culture and genomic sequencing experiments in relation to an Official Information Act request (which is analogous to a Freedom of Information request).
ESR couldn’t seem to find the “virus” but they featured this pretty picture.
So let’s have a look at the ESR’s “scientific” method with regards to their official records of a “SARS-CoV-2 virus”…
“Viral Culture/Experiment details –
Once the cells are 90 – 100% confluent, they are inoculated with 500 uL of diluted clinical sample (sample is diluted 1:10 in Infection media),10 mL of Infection Media is added to the flask. Infection media is made up of DMEM with 1% pen/strep/gentamycin, 1% Nystatin, 1% Glutamax, 1.5% Hepes plus 4ug/mL TPCK added.”
~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.
The “clinical sample” will be something like a crude nasopharyngeal sample taken from a patient. These specimens contain human tissue (from the host and other individuals in close contact with them), various bacterial and fungal elements, and whatever other material was in the patient’s mucosa. Amongst all this biological soup is the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, which of course, has never been directly found in any person. Apparently there can be 200 million copies of the virus in a sneeze but strangely they can’t find any in an “infected” individual.
Instead they resort to tissue culture experiments, as the ESR continues to explain…
“The flasks are then placed into an incubator and monitored for cytopathic effect (CPE) A SARS-CoV-2 N gene PCR is performed on the diluted 1:10 clinical sample and on the supernatant of the flask after 1 week of incubation (or sooner if 100% CPE is evident). CT values for both specimens are used as well as the CPE observed in the flask to determine if viral culture has been successful.”
~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.
Cytopathic effects are non-specific and are simply the observation that cells being stressed in a test tube eventually break down and die, with some cells producing vesicles. However, in the world of virology it is seen as evidence that a virus is at work and is somehow destroying the cells from within. “SARS-CoV-2 N gene” is a misnomer because there has never been a demonstration of a viral particle that contains this genetic sequence. Even more problematic is that there’s never been a demonstration of any viral particle. However, here we see them claiming “successful” viral culture if they detect a single short genetic sequence by PCR amplification. Note to virologists: detecting genetic sequences of unproven provenance does not equal virus.
Then we get to another interesting part…
“Viral culture/experiment details of the negative control –
The method above is also used for the negative control and the flask undergoes the same conditions as the flasks used for viral culture, however we use Infection media only.”
~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.
How on earth is this a comparable control experiment? – they added no control sample to their culture brew. In their first experiment they added a veritable biological soup containing human tissue along with various microorganisms and other organic fragments (everything present in a respiratory tract sample), and their alleged virus of course. Examples of valid control experiments would be:
The same type of sample taken from a well person.
The same type of sample taken from a person with a comparable clinical condition but said not to have “COVID-19” (without biased pre-selection in the form of a PCR result.)
Ironically, both of the above become meaningless in the case of “COVID-19” as it has no specific symptoms, signs, or investigations outside of the PCR result – a PCR result that has never been validated to a clinical condition. In fact, a priori the PCR could never be validated in this application as it is simply a tool to amplify selected genetic fragments, not determine their origin or the significance of their presence in mixed biological samples. So, in the case of (1) above, many well people are said to have “COVID-19” and in the case of (2), there is no way to distinguish a novel clinical condition. Dr Sam Bailey explained these problems back in 2020 in “What is a COVID-19 Case?” – a video banned by Big Tech after several hundred thousand views but still available here.
The wheels really fall off the ESR’s response when they are asked to explain how they purify the alleged virus sample for genomic sequencing and compare this to a control:
“’Whole Genome’ Sequencing – Purity and Control Details:
[• The degree of purity of the “virus” sample used in the sequencing experiment.] The protocols used for amplification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus consists of primers that specifically and selectively amplify the viral material, any remaining host or bacterial material is filtered out programmatically prior to data analysis.”
~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.
Either they don’t understand the question or are being disingenuous here. Their response doesn’t provide any evidence that they have a virus, let alone have attempted to purify it, in the analysis of its purported genome. They are simply using a process that amplifies sequences they have artificially selected but as it is a mixed sample they cannot demonstrate the origin of them. There is no way to claim this is “viral material” because no one has ever demonstrated that these sequences come from inside a virus, let alone belong to “SARS-CoV-2”. They are simply building on the nonsense that has spun out of control on GISAID.org where not one of the millions of deposited “genomes” has been shown to come from inside a viral particle. It’s turtles all the way down with these contrived “genomes”.
And with regards to the ESR’s “controls”?…
“[• All details of the control group that was used when comparing the results of sequencing:
o the total nucleic acid extracted from the “viral lysate” (from the experimental group), versus
o the total nucleic acid extracted from the non-viral lysate (from the control group).]
The protocols used to extract RNA from clinical samples do not yield a uniform quantity as this depends on the viral load within a sample. Details about the ranges obtained and used for further analysis are published in detail in several scientific peer-reviewed publications and can also be found on the publicly accessible protocols.io website, link provided below as requested.”
~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.
They appear to have dodged the question and the protocols provide no evidence of valid control experiments. The ESR have been asked to clarify this but we can already see they are not adhering to the scientific method. I also looked at the four publications that they suggested but these simply confirmed the problem: there is no evidence of any virus and the world is being duped in this war on humanity.
In fact, by definition, there has never been a demonstration of any disease-causing virus ever, full stop. Even if the ESR performed valid genomic control experiments there would still need to be further experiments to demonstrate the existence of a replication competent, obligate intracellular parasite that causes disease in a host. In other words, the actual existence of a virus. It makes me wonder whether the virologists are going to change the very definition of a virus soon in order to keep the whole façade afloat. However, once people realise that virology has never fulfilled its own postulates, they can take a major step away from this health misconception and ignore any of the related damaging measures and “treatments” coming from the medical-pharmaceutical complex.
Screenshot / 
_J.jpg){kind=link}
_G.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}